Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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. :)Er, what? Could you link me to the source for that? I think I have some characters that would be effected by it.
What about abilities that "work like" a certain spell?
For example, could Shadow Dancer or Horizon Walker fulfill the requirements for Dimensional Agility?
What about abilities that "work like" a certain spell?
For example, could Shadow Dancer or Horizon Walker fulfill the requirements for Dimensional Agility?
They still work.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
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.
Build is simple, 1 level of a base class, 10 levels of a PrC you can early entry at level 2, 10 levels of any other PrC using the first PrC to qualify (only 5 levels needed). Then swap 5 levels of a PrC for the "real" PrC, then the remaining 5 levels. Result is 1 base class level, 10 levels of the PrC you want capstone, and 9 levels of a PrC you use to qualify for the 10 levels of a PrC you wanted.
Basically you can't build it without using 4 more base classes now. So it would look like normal and require no rebuilds: 5 levels of base class, 5 levels of a PrC, and 10 levels of the desired PrC.
The build in question was using Evangelist to advance another PrC and using a third PrC to qualify for Evangelist and the advanced via Evangelist PrC. Finer points are irrelevant now.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
They still work.What about abilities that "work like" a certain spell?
For example, could Shadow Dancer or Horizon Walker fulfill the requirements for Dimensional Agility?
Shadow dancer didn't work and still doesn't. It's not a SLA dimension door, it's a SU dimension door.
{. . .}
Since they insist on inviobility of page # references they are averse to adding/subtracting significant word count, so just adding in a new rule like this seems unlikely to see in actual Errata, so this ends up as "FAQ as Errata that will never actually be put in RAW".
They COULD fix a few things without messing up page count. It wouldn't require all that many extra words to make Arcane Strike or a prestige class explicitly accept spell-like abilities. For instance, Blackfire Adept (listed as Darkfire Adept on d20pfsrd.com) explicitly lists "Spells: Able to cast summon monster III as a spell or spell-like ability" as one of the prerequisites, obviously meant to allow entry to a Summoner, although they forgot to make this Summon Monster III or higher, since the Summoner's spell-like ability upgrades with level (although not once you actually enter the prestige class, another probable oversight). Not very many extra words used there (and only a couple of more needed to make it actually work right).
|
While I agree with this FAQ (always thought the whole early entry thing was cheesy... I reserved whether I would allow it for when a player tried to do it, luckily none of my players have ever tried,) I think it's BS for one simple reason.
This isn't clarification of the rules, this is a errata. Either it worked the way it did before in the previous FAQ, or it works the way it does now... but the rules do not change unless they are changed. Yes, that is a very rules lawyer way of looking at it, but that's the way I see it. FAQ and errata are NOT the same thing, but it seems Paizo no longer realizes that and can just change up the FAQ any time they change their mind, but they don't have to fix the books because it's not an errata, it's a FAQ.
While I agree with this FAQ (always thought the whole early entry thing was cheesy... I reserved whether I would allow it for when a player tried to do it, luckily none of my players have ever tried,) I think it's BS for one simple reason.
This isn't clarification of the rules, this is a errata. Either it worked the way it did before in the previous FAQ, or it works the way it does now... but the rules do not change unless they are changed. Yes, that is a very rules lawyer way of looking at it, but that's the way I see it. FAQ and errata are NOT the same thing, but it seems Paizo no longer realizes that and can just change up the FAQ any time they change their mind, but they don't have to fix the books because it's not an errata, it's a FAQ.
The previous FAQ did clearly state that it might be rescinded. It was obviously intended to be an experiment rather than either errata or a typical FAQ.
|
|
The previous FAQ did clearly state that it might be rescinded. It was obviously intended to be an experiment rather than either errata or a typical FAQ.
Maybe, but even then that doesn't change what I said... FAQ and errata are not the same thing IMO, but it really has become such for Paizo even to the point of when they release something that causes unforeseen issues they have to retroactively go destroy other things, and because it's not in a core line and doesn't matter to PFS it's just "house rule it" which doesn't always work for GMs that don't like house rules.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like an duck... it's a cat.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The previous FAQ did clearly state that it might be rescinded. It was obviously intended to be an experiment rather than either errata or a typical FAQ.
that's not quite what it said. There was a CLEAR reason for possible reversal. "If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements."
So... I'm still waiting to see those "characters that are too powerful", since that was the trigger for revisiting the ruling. No one should have has a valid reason to think this would be reversed based on the actual wording unless they truly thought it was "too powerful". Aslo note that the only part that they said might be revisited was the ability to "gain access to some spellcaster prestige classes earlier" because of "prestige class requirements". Nothing was said about it's ability to count as spellcasting for feats being possible revoked too.
This really isn't a case of a clearly experimental FAQ that might be changed back at any time.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And the class all about making potions still can't make elixirs because he technically doesn't count as a spellcaster for item creation feats.
|
The likely reason for the new ruling is to reduce player confusion.
-----
Also, I have one of those Mystic Theurges that so many have complained about.
Dual-cursed Lore Oracle 1
Cross-blooded Sorcerer 4
Mystic Theurge 6
Here's what happens if I'm forced to rebuild as an Oracle 1 / Sorcerer 10:
Lose: 2nd. and 3rd. level oracle spells
Gain: 6 hit points, +1 natural armor, fire resistance 10, 10d6 breath weapon, a bonus feat and bloodline spells (very important for cross-blooded sorcerers).
I won't be upset.
It is just a +x to damage, where is the cool new thing in there?Yeah no more arcane strike with SLA.Yeah martials can't have nice tings.
Should you ever again find some feat/ability/whatever that is nice for martials please don't mention it here on the boards or use it in PFS. If you do it will be nerfed.Edit: Sorry, I noticed the above was off-topic.
What has not changed but strengthened is the caster martial disparity.
It can make your backup weapons magic on the fly. All your backup weapons. With it, for example, you can use a free sling with free slingstones to attack an incorporeal undead. That is a great option to have.
And it's not only arcane strike. It is grasping strike and its siblings, too. Entangling foes with weapon attacks can change a whole fight.
And the class all about making potions still can't make elixirs because he technically doesn't count as a spellcaster for item creation feats.
That is among the worst part of it all. You play a class that can create potion-like drinkable stuff but do not count as a spellcaster. So you are forced to use a SLA to qualify for something and then, a good amount of time later, the SLA suddenly doesn't work to qualify anymore. So you have an alchemy pc (alchemist or investigator) with several SLAs (half-drow with drow magic) who suddenly doesn't know enough about magic to qualify for magic-feats.
No early access, just a way to circumvent the strangeness that alchemy is not magic. And it gets the ban-hammer.
This ruling is a terrible shame, any ruling that limits options and freedom always bugs me. It created many options and had massive roleplaying value, I never took a build to the table that upset or angered anyone, but then again I didn't play with many beardy types. I hope they fix the PrC soon to make some of them playable.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is just a +x to damage, where is the cool new thing in there?Yeah no more arcane strike with SLA.Yeah martials can't have nice tings.
Should you ever again find some feat/ability/whatever that is nice for martials please don't mention it here on the boards or use it in PFS. If you do it will be nerfed.Edit: Sorry, I noticed the above was off-topic.
What has not changed but strengthened is the caster martial disparity.It can make your backup weapons magic on the fly. All your backup weapons. With it, for example, you can use a free sling with free slingstones to attack an incorporeal undead. That is a great option to have.
And it's not only arcane strike. It is grasping strike and its siblings, too. Entangling foes with weapon attacks can change a whole fight.
Actually, Arcane Strike won't do anything for you against ghosts. It makes your weapons "count as magic for the purpose of bypassing damage reduction", which doesn't change their interaction with incorporeal. Contrast with Bless Weapon, which makes a weapon strike "as if it had an enhancement bonus of +1". Sorry. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No early access, just a way to circumvent the strangeness that alchemy is not magic. And it gets the ban-hammer.
Alchemy isn't magic, but the alchemist's alchemy is magic. However, many feats like Arcane Strike and item creation feats only care if you can cast spells, even if the feat itself doesn't have anything to do with casting a spell.
So, we're back to the 3.5 status quo, more or less. I'm ... relieved. It's a simpler, happier world.
I do kind of miss Arcane Strike for rogues, but you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, I suppose.
It was ridiculous that you could take any SLA (even from something as minor as the Lantern Bearer trait from Occult Mysteries), and with that, all of a sudden, were able to enchant magic items as well as a wizard.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The previous FAQ did clearly state that it might be rescinded. It was obviously intended to be an experiment rather than either errata or a typical FAQ.Maybe, but even then that doesn't change what I said... FAQ and errata are not the same thing IMO, but it really has become such for Paizo even to the point of when they release something that causes unforeseen issues they have to retroactively go destroy other things, and because it's not in a core line and doesn't matter to PFS it's just "house rule it" which doesn't always work for GMs that don't like house rules.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like an duck... it's a cat.
I'm really not interested in parsing the differences between the very subjective categories of "errata" and "FAQs." Nor am I privy to Paizo's internal decision making process as you seem to be. I just don't think that reversing a FAQ that they warned might be reversed is a sign, in and of itself, that chaos has broken out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not enough people where unhappy? Tired of taking candy from babies? I can come up with a lot of guesses. ;)I am still curious of the intent behind this change.
I can't say I disagree.
There are a lot of players very annoyed. There is a whole thread devoted to SLA and early entry. And guides that go through the SLA and early entry in detail. Some people went to a lot of effort to do that.If you look at MT for example-
1 The PC appeared in the core rules and was so weak it was useless.
2 The old FAQ showed up and made it playable [in some cases]
3 The new FAQ comes along and makes a lot of current characters impossible and wastes lots of work.
4 No reason is given.
The previous FAQ did clearly state that it might be rescinded. It was obviously intended to be an experiment rather than either errata or a typical FAQ.that's not quite what it said. There was a CLEAR reason for possible reversal. "If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements."
So... I'm still waiting to see those "characters that are too powerful", since that was the trigger for revisiting the ruling. No one should have has a valid reason to think this would be reversed based on the actual wording unless they truly thought it was "too powerful". Aslo note that the only part that they said might be revisited was the ability to "gain access to some spellcaster prestige classes earlier" because of "prestige class requirements". Nothing was said about it's ability to count as spellcasting for feats being possible revoked too.
This really isn't a case of a clearly experimental FAQ that might be changed back at any time.
You make some fair points. I just thought that the generalization to all FAQ's, based on this one unique case that came with a caveat, was a bit strong.
I don't think it was a power balance issue, primarily. The biggest problem with the previous ruling is that it made almost every instance of "cast a spell" in the rules ambiguous. The new ruling makes it clear that a SLA lets you cast a spell, not cast a spell. This restores a lot of rulings to be consistent with some very specific things from the item creation rules.
I don't think it was a power balance issue, primarily. The biggest problem with the previous ruling is that it made almost every instance of "cast a spell" in the rules ambiguous. The new ruling makes it clear that a SLA lets you cast a spell, not cast a spell. This restores a lot of rulings to be consistent with some very specific things from the item creation rules.
Which, again, hiding item creation behind a barrier entry wall is... weak, to say the least.
There have been several that have mentioned how "ridiculous" it is that a spell-like ability allowed someone to make magic items. What about someone who has no magical ability whatsoever? Because they can, in fact, make <certain> magic items. And that? That has bugged the daylights out of me. Not that they can make magic items, mind... but that they can only make <certain> magic items. Why is it limited in that manner? I mean, it's already limited in the fact that you have to have a specific craft or profession skill (thus limiting the types of items you'd make anyway)... so why limit it further by saying "only these feats"?
Don't get me wrong - the advent of Master Craftsman as a game-engine placement was a mind-blowing and awesome development!
"Non-casters... can be... so skilled... that they... can... make magic items! Yyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeessssssss... yyyyyeeessss... YES!"
(I'm a little slow sometimes.)
The problem is - it's limited by two methods - a skill-point tax and a feat tax (and limited by the feats you could take in the first place; also "brew potion" not being on that list just seems weeeeeeeiiiiiiiiirrrrrrd).
Point being, Paizo took an awesome step in the right direction... but one that, in the end, needs to be taken further.
I, it must be said, do not find it ridiculous that an SLA could "qualify" you for magic item creation. I mean, that's a great character story right there!
"My magic dim - I'm not so skilled like the others, and can only produce a minor light... a few times per day if I'm lucky. But I know what I can do: make things. I may not be strong, or powerful, but I can equip my friends and college and that is what I'll do!"
It's even a classic trope: "meager skills, amazing craftsman".
|
Contributor
|
That was changed to work, actually, way back in October.
Actually, Arcane Strike won't do anything for you against ghosts. It makes your weapons "count as magic for the purpose of bypassing damage reduction", which doesn't change their interaction with incorporeal. Contrast with Bless Weapon, which makes a weapon strike "as if it had an enhancement bonus of +1". Sorry. :)
I see. Thanks for the clarification! :)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was never a fan of the original ruling Paizo made, but as with everything, I spoke with my group about it so that we're all on the same page about how the rules work. It was then that I knew this ruling was a poor idea. Tt took me 10 minutes of explaining it for the more experienced guys to understand it and their response was "You're pulling our chain, right? That is the silliest rule I've ever heard."
Had the original ruling been what it is now, the response from most people would have been "Duh, it's been that way for ~14 years of 3.Xe." Instead, a ruling was made that required a much higher than average level of system mastery and changed many of the subtly accepted "rules" of the game. (Spell-like abilities normally aren't super valuable unless it's a decent spell, Prestige classes required 5-6 levels of a base class, etc.)
The real misstep Paizo made in this whole ordeal was ruling the way they did on the original FAQ a year and a half ago.
I don't think it was a power balance issue, primarily. The biggest problem with the previous ruling is that it made almost every instance of "cast a spell" in the rules ambiguous. The new ruling makes it clear that a SLA lets you cast a spell, not cast a spell. This restores a lot of rulings to be consistent with some very specific things from the item creation rules.Which, again, hiding item creation behind a barrier entry wall is... weak, to say the least.
There have been several that have mentioned how "ridiculous" it is that a spell-like ability allowed someone to make magic items. What about someone who has no magical ability whatsoever? Because they can, in fact, make <certain> magic items. And that? That has bugged the daylights out of me. Not that they can make magic items, mind... but that they can only make <certain> magic items. Why is it limited in that manner? I mean, it's already limited in the fact that you have to have a specific craft or profession skill (thus limiting the types of items you'd make anyway)... so why limit it further by saying "only these feats"?
Don't get me wrong - the advent of Master Craftsman as a game-engine placement was a mind-blowing and awesome development!
"Non-casters... can be... so skilled... that they... can... make magic items! Yyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeessssssss... yyyyyeeessss... YES!"
(I'm a little slow sometimes.)
The problem is - it's limited by two methods - a skill-point tax and a feat tax (and limited by the feats you could take in the first place; also "brew potion" not being on that list just seems weeeeeeeiiiiiiiiirrrrrrd).
Point being, Paizo took an awesome step in the right direction... but one that, in the end, needs to be taken further.
I, it must be said, do not find it ridiculous that an SLA could "qualify" you for magic item creation. I mean, that's a great character story right...
I understand that issue, and I do believe that perhaps Brew Potion could likely be added to Master Craftsmen, or perhaps just home-brew your own 'Master Mixer' feat, that is mechanically similar. I do agree with non-casters not being able to craft spell completion or spell trigger items though. So I don't see how Craft Staff, Craft Wand, or Scribe Scroll would be of any use.
I don't follow how you think that Master Craftsman has a skill tax though. IF you are going to enchant a magic sword, in most cases, Craft (weapons) is going to be more beneficial than Spellcraft. Also, you can't make the actual masterwork sword to begin with by using Spellcraft. There are far more ways to boost a craft skill than Spellcraft, not just from feats and traits, but also class abilities, and masterwork tools.
It's a skill tax because crafter-mages can either purchase a masterwork sword, or grant themselves bonuses in craft, fabricate a masterwork version (and keep trying on the same piece of metal until they succeed), and then make with the magic-making.
Hence, a skill tax.
I didn't say it was a bad skill tax, mind - only that it was yet one more gateway one had to pass through to be able to craft properly by that feat that others do not need.
EDIT: And Profession (magic item creation) would be better than any kind of specified craft. Of course, that's not a listed Profession (and it's really silly*)... but you should definitely be able to choose non-listed professions. Otherwise, there is absolutely no point in making Profession an entry-requirement for the feat. EDIT 2: I mean, just look at the listed professions - the only relevant one is "trapper", and even then, there's craft. It's either a mistaken extraneous line, or it specifies the kind of item you can create, i.e. limiting your options beyond what a crafter mage could do. Crafter's Fortune (which augments the normally-very-high INT of wizards), by the way, Fabricate, and the FAQ relevant to it. Heck, throw in a blood money and you don't even have to worry about buying anything to enchant (because, I don't know about you, but I'm not going to make a sword larger than 10 cubic feet)**. I mean, if I really wanted, I could summon a creature or a few unseen servants to provide an Aid Another bonus. borrow skill or (more likely) bestow insight (via repeat-use magic item lent to a skilled low-level worker) means that I really don't care about the skill at all (and is really inexpensive, and they can Aid Another)***.
* Which is why I wouldn't do it and most GMs would go, "Eh... no."
** Similarly, only the most unusual interpretations of English would say that you can't use the masterwork sword created by blood money to make a magical item, due to one stray line. Even if that was true, however, the other points without that spell stand on their own.
*** A GM is at liberty to state that they cannot for any reason the GM likes, but that is getting into the "splitting hairs" territory of table variation... and none of the extra stuff is necessary anyway.
|
|
I'm glad for this. It destroys a lot of terribly cheesy builds.What is your definition of cheesy? I have yet to see anything I'd count as overpowered. Or is dealing a few extra points of damage with arcane strike somehow cheesy?
if you don't think it's cheesy then you're probably not going to miss it
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
if you don't think it's cheesy then you're probably not going to miss it
... what?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From my understanding of the feat you can't take Master Craftsman more than once, and the feat stipulates that you must use your chosen skill to make the item. IE if you take Master Craftsman and Craft Magical Arms And Armor you have to choose to specialize in Craft: armor, Craft: weapons, or Craft: bows. Depending on which skill you choose you're utilizing between 50% and 10% of Craft Magical Arms and Armor compared to a normal caster, who pays a feat less than you and only has to worry about spellcraft.
If you take Master Craftsman and Craft Wondrous Items, your best bet is either Craft: Jewelry/Profession: Jeweler or Craft: Clothing/Profession: Tailor, both of which gives you access to less than half the options offered to a spellcaster, who again has to spend one feat less than you.
When I first read Master Craftsman in the CRB (coming from 3.x) I was blown away by the fact that fighters could finally forge their own magical weapon and armor without needing some ninny in a bath robe - I didn't realize how limited the wording of the feat actually was. Reading it again now I still think it's good that the option exists, but I find it disappointing that MC is "as good as it gets" - non-magical crafters have gotten zero support in the multitude of books that have been released since the CRB was finished, which especially hoses classes like alchemists and investigators.
I like the idea of using Spellcraft in place of caster level to qualify for crafting feats, but I could also get behind a master craftsman feat that simply allows you to use any craft and profession skill in place of spellcraft on all crafting feats, barring spell trigger and spell completion items. Forge Ring and Craft Ooze in particular should absolutely be options for Master Craftsman.
Indeed - I'd not mind going that way either.
EDIT: In case my other post isn't clear, I'm not saying that it's bad to tie things to the skill. I just think it's weird to limit what a Master Crafter has access to in three different ways: you must have <X> relevant skill, you must have <Y> feat, but you can only select from <Z> list of feats (and even then, you can't make all items of all types of those specific skill/feat combos).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was never a fan of the original ruling Paizo made, but as with everything, I spoke with my group about it so that we're all on the same page about how the rules work. It was then that I knew this ruling was a poor idea. Tt took me 10 minutes of explaining it for the more experienced guys to understand it and their response was "You're pulling our chain, right? That is the silliest rule I've ever heard."
{. . .}
How did the original FAQ take 10 minutes to explain? I wasn't on board with it when I first found out about it, but it took no longer to understand than the amount of time required to read it. But it didn't cause any pain, just a feeling of "this is weird . . .". The new FAQ is also easy to understand (but not any easier), but it has caused a lot of people pain, since it was made without fixing any of the issues that the original FAQ addressed.
|
owner - Redcap's Corner, Owner - Redcap's Corner
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
The arcane archer took a hit because people were using the FAQ to get early entry into eldritch knight, so that by the time they qualified for arcane archer they had nearly full wizard spellcasting progression AND BAB: aasimar wizard 1/eldritch knight 6/arcane archer X, etc. Such a character is a 6th level wizard upon taking its 1st level of arcane archer at level 8 and has full BAB minus 1. Compare with the alternatives now: fighter 4/wizard 5/arcane archer X (wizard caster levels, but only 5 of them at 10th level, with 3/4 BAB, and you're also not an AA until 10th level), bloodrager 6/arcane archer X (full BAB, but super crappy casting), magus 8/arcane archer X (good casting, and only a little behind on BAB, but it sure isn't wizard casting, not to mention you're an AA at level 9 instead of 7), etc.
I was never a fan of the original ruling Paizo made, but as with everything, I spoke with my group about it so that we're all on the same page about how the rules work. It was then that I knew this ruling was a poor idea. Tt took me 10 minutes of explaining it for the more experienced guys to understand it and their response was "You're pulling our chain, right? That is the silliest rule I've ever heard."
Had the original ruling been what it is now, the response from most people would have been "Duh, it's been that way for ~14 years of 3.Xe." Instead, a ruling was made that required a much higher than average level of system mastery and changed many of the subtly accepted "rules" of the game. (Spell-like abilities normally aren't super valuable unless it's a decent spell, Prestige classes required 5-6 levels of a base class, etc.)
The real misstep Paizo made in this whole ordeal was ruling the way they did on the original FAQ a year and a half ago.
I don't think that it's good design to nerf the low-powered builds of players with a high degree of game mastery. If those players can no longer use the interesting but low-power option, they are more likely to just build very powerful characters, potentially getting into balance issues.
If you feel that system mastery is not something to be rewarded, you can play your own table that only allows core-only barbarians. But for people who like to make interesting niche builds that can use a unique play style and still remain viable, it is frustrating to have balanced options stripped away for no reason other than the fact that familiarity with an FAQ was needed to build them.
|
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed - I'd not mind going that way either.
EDIT: In case my other post isn't clear, I'm not saying that it's bad to tie things to the skill. I just think it's weird to limit what a Master Crafter has access to in three different ways: you must have <X> relevant skill, you must have <Y> feat, but you can only select from <Z> list of feats (and even then, you can't make all items of all types of those specific skill/feat combos).
I may just be some sort of spoiled tyrant queen of a GM, but after seeing what crafting feats do to party wealth - for the costof a single feat - I feel like the actual crafting feats could use a bit more of this. Not all the way down to Master Craftsman's level - ouch - but maybe something a little tighter than "any wondrous item ever" or even "any weapon or armor ever". For 1/2 or 1/3 the amount of training required to trip people.
I may start referring to myself as Tyrant Princess when I GM, actually. It has a nice ring to it...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I LIVE.
Vote for me, and I'll provide all-new FAQs, which will in no way be the tyrannical whims of an omnipotent sorceress-queen.
THE GM IS LIFE.
Wait, we're voting for a princess now?
(I mean, tyrants, sure, that's where those come from, after all - thank you, ancient Greece - but, princesses? That's unrealistic and harms my enjoyment. No one should do it.)
I suspect that changing crafting so that the cost is greater but the time requirements are less might make both sides a little happier.
I figured that folks might agree the slow MT was better than a Rogue. I wonder how slow MT would get rated against a Fighter or even in a general "power tier" scheme though.
Obviously the FAQ is a nerf to the MT, but I wonder how nerfed it really is and how that reflects on the power balance of casters and martials in terms of levels. That gives me the idea of using different XP tracks for different classes kind of like in AD&D. I'm not sure it is a good or even functional idea for Pathfinder, but I do recall that Thieves (the AD&D ancestor of Rogues) used to advance in levels really quickly while Wizards lagged behind.
How did the original FAQ take 10 minutes to explain? I wasn't on board with it when I first found out about it, but it took no longer to understand than the amount of time required to read it. But it didn't cause any pain, just a feeling of "this is weird . . .". The new FAQ is also easy to understand (but not any easier), but it has caused a lot of people pain, since it was made without fixing any of the issues that the original FAQ addressed.
The original FAQ didn't take long to explain, but it required the user to know (1) how to determine whether a spell-like ability was arcane or divine and (2) how to determine the spell level of a spell-like ability. I don't know that 10 minutes is right, but it's more complicated than the "they're not the same" of the current version.
That said, the reason I didn't like the original was (with a nod to BigNorseWolf), it limited the design space. When writing up feat requirements, it's necessary to know how people can meet them and having a random 3rd level SLA requires a lot more awareness across the system than having BAB+5 or the like. Bonus feats are kind of the same, but I think they're awarded with more deference to their pre-reqs than SLAs are with deference to their spell level.
My guess is they looked at some PRCs or feats in Pathfinder Unchained and realized there was something that would be broken by SLAs and decided to cut off the problem in advance. That has the added value of explaining to me why they haven't told us their reasoning (involves still secret knowledge) and being consistent with their earlier hedging. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
{. . .}
That said, the reason I didn't like the original was (with a nod to BigNorseWolf), it limited the design space. When writing up feat requirements, it's necessary to know how people can meet them and having a random 3rd level SLA requires a lot more awareness across the system than having BAB+5 or the like. {. . .}
The last part of this I agree with, but I wouldn't call that limiting the design space -- the new FAQ limits the design space; the old FAQ made it more complex, but extended it in some places where it really needed extension, and the new FAQ -- as desirable as it is for reducing weirdness that requires research to master -- killed most of that much needed extension without providing a replacement.
My guess is they looked at some PRCs or feats in Pathfinder Unchained and realized there was something that would be broken by SLAs and decided to cut off the problem in advance. That has the added value of explaining to me why they haven't told us their reasoning (involves still secret knowledge) and being consistent with their earlier hedging. :-)
That shouldn't have been kept secret, or they should have delayed the new FAQ until Pathfinder Unchained (or whatever) was ready to release or at least put into playtest (if they are even doing so for this).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, we're voting for a princess now?
(I mean, tyrants, sure, that's where those come from, after all - thank you, ancient Greece - but, princesses? That's unrealistic and harms my enjoyment. No one should do it.)
Oh, sweetie. I didn't say the votes counted. Or that there were other candidates.
But apparently someone decided that democracy was in vogue, and now I have to be the "rightfully elected" tyrant princess. It's such a chore.
|
|
I have an Aasimar Wizard 1, Rogue 3, Arcane Trickster 7. He's my favorite "rogue" to play (since the rogue class sucks, he was one of my attempts at making one that was at least tolerable at the table). I never felt like he was overpowered in the slightest.
I can see why they did what they did (SLA's should never count as spells) but based on the amount of complaining on these boards, they REALLY need to look at some of the prestige class entry requirements - many of the core ones are holdovers from 3.x.
There are a number of things they could do to make the prestige classes easier to access:
Arcane Archer - Lower the BAB requirement to 4
Arcane Trickster - Lower the spell and/or sneak attack die requirements
Is assassin even necessary any more? Seems like a lesser version of a ninja/slayer
Dragon Disciple - seems ok, but I have literally never seen one at a PFS table
Duelist - seems like a swashbuckler archetype now
Eldritch Knight - seems like one of the main reasons the recent FAQ was targeted at? I dunno, not much experiences with them
Loremaster - drop the knowledge skill ranks down to 5, lower the feat requirement down to 2, drop the divination spell requirement down to just a few
MT - plenty of people in this thread have said where the requirements should be
Pathfinder Chronicler - I have quite literally never even heard of one in any home game or PFS game I've played
Shadowdancer - seems like one of those prestige classes people take for just a 1 level dip (maybe 3 levels if they want a pet who drains strength?)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, Wait, Wait a minute...
Shouldn't it me GM Princess Tyrant?
Princess GM Tyrant?
Or maybe Tyrant Princess GM?
We have to figure proper precedence of royalty, vocation, and power!