A request for clarification from management wrt the SLA FAQ change


Pathfinder Society

201 to 250 of 581 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages 5/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Andrew Torgerud wrote:
Let me define "abuse cases" - abuse cases are characters who were no intended to take the PrC, but could and would be 're-purposed' with the intent of a free rebuild/retrain.

How common do you think that situation is? Unlike mordor, one does not simply walk into early entry mystic theurge. It is something you have to plan very carefully for. Someone that could serendipitously make a good mystic theurge out of their character without having been heading that way anyway is too rare a circumstance to build policy around.

Very few people want to walk that path. Very few people want to be with a party member on that path. It leads through a VERY long valley of dross.

Any wizard 2(or any arcane caster) with a 12 wisdom could claim they were 'planning' to be a mystic thuerge (maybe even a wisdom 11, with 4th level bump and stat boost item they haven't bought yet, and being a buffer theurge - by the time they needed a 15 wisdom they would be 12th level) - likewise any trickery domain or fate inquisition cleric - or if you can retrain domains (which I don't recall) - any cleric of a god that has either. And if you can retrain gods with an atonement - not even that restriction.

And maybe not even deeply planning, but it was 'always an option.'


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dhjika wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Andrew Torgerud wrote:
Let me define "abuse cases" - abuse cases are characters who were no intended to take the PrC, but could and would be 're-purposed' with the intent of a free rebuild/retrain.

How common do you think that situation is? Unlike mordor, one does not simply walk into early entry mystic theurge. It is something you have to plan very carefully for. Someone that could serendipitously make a good mystic theurge out of their character without having been heading that way anyway is too rare a circumstance to build policy around.

Very few people want to walk that path. Very few people want to be with a party member on that path. It leads through a VERY long valley of dross.

Any wizard 2(or any arcane caster) with a 12 wisdom could claim they were 'planning' to be a mystic thuerge (maybe even a wisdom 11, with 4th level bump and stat boost item they haven't bought yet, and being a buffer theurge - by the time they needed a 15 wisdom they would be 12th level) - likewise any trickery domain or fate inquisition cleric - or if you can retrain domains (which I don't recall) - any cleric of a god that has either. And if you can retrain gods with an atonement - not even that restriction.

And maybe not even deeply planning, but it was 'always an option.'

True. So?

I guess if you consider that abuse and thought it would be noticeably widespread, that would be an argument against doing so. These characters are likely to be less effective than those designed as such from the start. Some of the proposals have also stated no-retraining, preventing some from changing to qualify.

It's certainly not the same as quickly building up a buffer of a dozen aasimars and tielfings so that the rule change effectively doesn't apply to you for the foreseeable future.

Still, if they stated that was the reason they rejected this option, having weighed it against those whose characters actually are affected, at least we'd know.

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

This sort of event is an unintended consequence of the insatiable appetite for FAQs.

It's part of the RAW nature of PFS.

-Skeld


8 people marked this as a favorite.

So as somebody that has been looking into pathfinder society play for a long time (and I mean a LONG time, my schedule never lines up, but its finally starting to open up), let me ask this:

What incentive do I have, when after 30-40 hours of game time, plus any books I purchase, that my character plan could be invalidated at any time without any recompense, warning, or alternative?

I'm not impressed at all with how venture captains have handled this situation. Some are even accusing players that used the rules of pathfinder society play to their advantage of cheating. I understand you are volunteers, but I cannot believe you are permitted to act this way on behalf of Paizo.

As a customer with paying money, this is not something I wish to support.

I encourage you to use whatever metrics available to you to make your choices, and I don't doubt that leadership involved did in fact spend time on reaching this decision, but know that the decision you made over this came with a loss of several sales to support a future pathfinder society character.

I am not going to spend money with a company that would treat me, my time, or my limited resources like this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SPACEBALL12345 wrote:

So as somebody that has been looking into pathfinder society play for a long time (and I mean a LONG time, my schedule never lines up, but its finally starting to open up), let me ask this:

What incentive do I have, when after 30-40 hours of game time, plus any books I purchase, that my character plan could be invalidated at any time without any recompense, warning, or alternative?

I'm not impressed at all with how venture captains have handled this situation. Some are even accusing players that used the rules of pathfinder society play to their advantage of cheating. I understand you are volunteers, but I cannot believe you are permitted to act this way on behalf of Paizo.

As a customer with paying money, this is not something I wish to support.

I encourage you to use whatever metrics available to you to make your choices, and I don't doubt that leadership involved did in fact spend time on reaching this decision, but know that the decision you made over this came with a loss of several sales to support a future pathfinder society character.

I am not going to spend money with a company that would treat me, my time, or my limited resources like this.

In theory? None whatsoever. It could happen.

In practice, it's vanishingly rare and pretty easy to avoid. Don't, for example, base character builds on FAQs that say "We might change this".

I say that as someone who thinks they could have done more to mitigate the fallout from this change. It really is a small effect.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I understand that the change had to be made.

I understand the grandfathering cut off.

I do NOT understand the phobia around the rebuilds, especially in conjunction with the grandfathering cutoff. There should be some option to get out of the cocoon now that you need to fly to mexico in order to become a butterfly.

The cost to individual characters is pretty high. If mystic theurges running around had a proportional loss of fun high enough to justify that then why grandfather them in at all?


BigNorseWolf wrote:

I understand that the change had to be made.

I understand the grandfathering cut off.

I do NOT understand the phobia around the rebuilds, especially in conjunction with the grandfathering cutoff. There should be some option to get out of the cocoon now that you need to fly to mexico in order to become a butterfly.

The cost to individual characters is pretty high. If mystic theurges running around had a proportional loss of fun high enough to justify that then why grandfather them in at all?

The problem with rebuilds is "Who gets one?"


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't play PFS, so I don't have a horse in this race even kind-of (and feel free to disregard me if you like). That said, I imagine the reason is related to documentation of options rather than documentation of characters (or power level given the choice to grandfather at all).

Imagine a relatively new player who has a 2nd level character. They want to know what their options are. What can they get into?

Prior to the FAQ change, they'd look at the FAQ, see the SLA story, probably get it explained (since I don't think it was particularly easy to parse without a decent gut level understanding of the general rules), and see Mystic Theurge. It's likely their stats aren't optimized for it, but an 18 int, 14 wis "If I'm gonna be smart I don't wanna be dumb" wizard is both plausible and reasonable for MT entry.

Where do they find that information now? I don't think the Guide to Organized Play should be saying "if your character was created before___, these are your rules, if not, refer to the (current) RAW and FAQ." The old version isn't available in the FAQ any longer (short of Wayback Machine or asking the dev team to maintain a versioned FAQ rather than just a current FAQ, leading to more confusion), so that's not an option.

Note that that decision doesn't exist for people already in the PrC. The question of "can I take another level of EK?" doesn't hinge on the pre-reqs, it's answered by the fact that you could have the level you currently have. There can still be some confusion in auditing, but for those who don't fully grasp the story, the knowledge that there was some grandfathering should be satisfactory.

Also, the planetouched thing is unrelated to this interpretation since that was a question of access rather than a question of rules.

Edit: I should add that this isn't to disagree with those asking for more extensive grandfathering. It's merely to offer a counterpoint. As I said up top, I don't personally care beyond wanting Pathfinder in general to be a healthy system for longtime users and newbies alike.

5/5 5/55/55/5

thejeff wrote:

]The problem with rebuilds is "Who gets one?"

Anyone willing to say they were headed for mystic theurge. If someone's going to lie about that there's no reason they wouldn't lie and just erase something on their sheets anyway.

Or you could make it any dual classed caster

Lantern Lodge 5/5 * RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.
SPACEBALL12345 wrote:


What incentive do I have, when after 30-40 hours of game time, plus any books I purchase, that my character plan could be invalidated at any time without any recompense, warning, or alternative?

Howdy, this will probably already be ninja'ed by the time I finish collecting my thoughts, but here goes anyway.

My answer to your question is that because having a character invalidated without any recompense, warning, or alternative is an incredibly minor corner case that you likely never be affected in such a situation. Even those in the mystic thereuge case have an alternative, even if it's undesirable (to me, it's just play it slow and advance normally). But out of all the allowed resources in PFS (of which there is a very impressive amount), there's only been a real handful of serious bannings or alterations. Besides the SLA FAQ update that resulted in this thread, the other major situations I can think of are the 4 APG/UM archetype bannings, some undercosted/overpowered magical items, the switching of the races between seasons 5 and 6, the Crane Wing FAQ update(s), the warpriest revision between playtest and the live Advanced Class Guide, and the banning of the Pageant of the Peacock masterpiece. In each case, at the very least feats or class levels were able replaced or gold refunded in the case of items. For the aasimar/tiefling removal, a heads up was given so PCs could be locked in. In all honesty, that's pretty good track record, especially given the wide audience of PFS.

In my opinion, overall the PFS leaders have been fairly generous when it comes to rebuilds for class and archetype changes or bannings. For example, warpriests were allowed to rebuild their stats due to the dropping of Charisma as a Warpriest stat between the playtest and live versions. Others may not see it as so, simply because it's not enough to them, such as not being able to completely retrain old synthesists and just replace the summoner levels, leaving some former synthesists with horrible physical stats (which was exacerbated with some taking paladin level dips, too, which could not be retrained).

In this case, the generosity extends to the fact that Mike and John allowed any grandfathering as, RAW between the FAQ and the Guide for the Society, PCs who used the old SLA FAQ for early entry would be forced to rebuild the Prestige Class levels. I think the ruling on grandfathering they made is fair, although I do acknowledge that it short changes those who didn't quite make it to the Prestige Class levels and are left wondering what to do.

Personally, I think that outside of some strange builds that I can't fathom at the time, the PCs should still be playable as most of them should be able to still eventually hit prestige class levels, albeit in the traditional way instead of the short cut. However, I also acknowledge that some people may not feel the desire to play a PC that now appears weakened to them.

So, why should you play PFS? Because PFS is fun. If you have a community there, it's a great way to meet new people, experience different builds, and explore Paizo's world of Golarion in a number of fun and exciting scenarios. Don't let corner case fear ruin you of a good time; branch out and give PFS a shot. I think you'll be glad you did :)


Berinor wrote:

I don't play PFS, so I don't have a horse in this race even kind-of (and feel free to disregard me if you like). That said, I imagine the reason is related to documentation of options rather than documentation of characters (or power level given the choice to grandfather at all).

Imagine a relatively new player who has a 2nd level character. They want to know what their options are. What can they get into?

Prior to the FAQ change, they'd look at the FAQ, see the SLA story, probably get it explained (since I don't think it was particularly easy to parse without a decent gut level understanding of the general rules), and see Mystic Theurge. It's likely their stats aren't optimized for it, but an 18 int, 14 wis "If I'm gonna be smart I don't wanna be dumb" wizard is both plausible and reasonable for MT entry.

Where do they find that information now? I don't think the Guide to Organized Play should be saying "if your character was created before___, these are your rules, if not, refer to the (current) RAW and FAQ." The old version isn't available in the FAQ any longer (short of Wayback Machine or asking the dev team to maintain a versioned FAQ rather than just a current FAQ, leading to more confusion), so that's not an option.

Note that that decision doesn't exist for people already in the PrC. The question of "can I take another level of EK?" doesn't hinge on the pre-reqs, it's answered by the fact that you could have the level you currently have. There can still be some confusion in auditing, but for those who don't fully grasp the story, the knowledge that there was some grandfathering should be satisfactory.

Also, the planetouched thing is unrelated to this interpretation since that was a question of access rather than a question of rules.

A character who has just reached 2nd level and is looking around to see what they can do, isn't a character who was planning to go MT and so I don't particularly care if they realize they could.

They don't need that information, even though they technically qualified.

Lantern Lodge 5/5 * RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16

thejeff wrote:

In theory? None whatsoever. It could happen.

In practice, it's vanishingly rare and pretty easy to avoid. Don't, for example, base character builds on FAQs that say "We might change this".

I say that as someone who thinks they could have done more to mitigate the fallout from this change. It really is a small effect.

Very concisely said :)


BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
]The problem with rebuilds is "Who gets one?"
Anyone willing to say they were headed for mystic theurge. If someone's going to lie about that there's no reason they wouldn't lie and just erase something on their sheets anyway.

There is always that.

4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the issue with the grandfathering all characters (played with 4xp or more) that are working towards prestige class early entry is that we need someone to judge whether or not someone was trying to actually get early entry.

It's hard for us as GM's to truly determine what a players intent is 100%. We can't read minds after all. And grandfathering based on intent would mean that GMs out there would have to make that call.

Now you could put that one the local Venture Officers, but that would leave out people who are in areas where we have no VO's or they are too far away.

So the burden of judging player intent would have to be on the local GMs. That's a hard thing to make GMs do. To force them to judge whether or not a players intent are honorable or not. What if the GM decided that one player was working towards the early entry and one was not? That GM would have to deal with drama that shouldn't be forced upon a volunteer.

Then we have to take in account that when we as players and GM's were given a grace period on the planetouched races some GM's and players combined to reduce scenarios that are intended to be around 4 hours down to 30 minutes. Which while a minimum time limit isn't required it's hard to argue that doing so is actually in the spirit of organized play.

And that abuse did have a negative effect. Some players who did not abuse the grace period in such ways don't get the benefit of some of the most powerful races in the game where players who have abused that rule will continue to have those races stockpiled for years. At no cost to the playability of scenarios and with only 30 minutes of time spent.

That makes the players who didn't go against the spirit of the ruling, and new players that came in later feel bad about it. Because they are not getting rewarded (playing more powerful races) because they didn't want to be abusive.

The same sentiment can be applied towards early entry PRC.

And forget about free rebuilds, trying to judge whether someone with 2 levels of fighter or rogue was going to try to get early entry in the next level or two or is actually trying to get a free rebuild would be extremely hard on GMs.

The only reasonable thing that Mike and John could do is grandfather the players who have already taken the levels. It doesn't require local GM to judge players intent as if they already have the levels they obviously intended to. It can't be abused by players. It's easy to implement.

But obviously it sucks for the people who truly intended to take these PRC with the early entry the FAQ once allowed. And while I understand some of them feel that they are suffering because of choices that other players made when the grace period of plane touched was abused. But Mike and John have to look at PFS player base in its entirety and make those decisions on whats best for the Organized Play Campaign as a whole.

I'm not trying to say the reasons that I've stated are the reason the ruling were made, I'm not privy to the conversations between Mike and John, but looking at the situation these are why I would make the same decision that they made.

I don't think I can change your viewpoints because I understand the reason why people are angry and disappointed. I just wanted to address the proposed grandfathering option and why I feel it wouldn't work.

Plus I tend to ramble...

5/5 5/55/55/5

Jeffrey Fox wrote:
But Mike and John have to look at PFS player base in its entirety and make those decisions on whats best for the Organized Play Campaign as a whole.

The ruling hurts anyone between levels 2 and mystic theurge.

Free rebuilds hurts....?


Jeffrey Fox wrote:

I think the issue with the grandfathering all characters (played with 4xp or more) that are working towards prestige class early entry is that we need someone to judge whether or not someone was trying to actually get early entry.

It's hard for us as GM's to truly determine what a players intent is 100%. We can't read minds after all. And grandfathering based on intent would mean that GMs out there would have to make that call.

Now you could put that one the local Venture Officers, but that would leave out people who are in areas where we have no VO's or they are too far away.

So the burden of judging player intent would have to be on the local GMs. That's a hard thing to make GMs do. To force them to judge whether or not a players intent are honorable or not. What if the GM decided that one player was working towards the early entry and one was not? That GM would have to deal with drama that shouldn't be forced upon a volunteer.

Then we have to take in account that when we as players and GM's were given a grace period on the planetouched races some GM's and players combined to reduce scenarios that are intended to be around 4 hours down to 30 minutes. Which while a minimum time limit isn't required it's hard to argue that doing so is actually in the spirit of organized play.

And that abuse did have a negative effect. Some players who did not abuse the grace period in such ways don't get the benefit of some of the most powerful races in the game where players who have abused that rule will continue to have those races stockpiled for years. At no cost to the playability of scenarios and with only 30 minutes of time spent.

That makes the players who didn't go against the spirit of the ruling, and new players that came in later feel bad about it. Because they are not getting rewarded (playing more powerful races) because they didn't want to be abusive.

The same sentiment can be applied towards early entry PRC.

And forget about free rebuilds, trying to judge whether someone with 2 levels of...

The main suggestion on the table doesn't involve judging whether or not the PC was headed for early entry. It acknowledges that isn't feasible and assumes that although there will be some who take advantage of it, the number that are both interested and in position to do so will be small.

If Mike and John really think that's unacceptable, that's fair. It is their call.
Bringing up the planetouched grace period again doesn't really help the argument though. It's just not relevant, unless people really have dozens of 2nd Level characters waiting to abuse such a rules change.

I do agree about the free rebuilds, though BNW raises a valid point there.

201 to 250 of 581 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / A request for clarification from management wrt the SLA FAQ change All Messageboards