Sound Striker Bard FAQ

[kinevon]

Okay, they finally came through with the Sound Striker FAQ on how the Weird Words ability works, and it is more of an errata than an FAQ.

Bard: The sound striker’s weird words ability is confusing. Does it work more than once on the same target? And does it require 30 rolls to adjudicate?
Change the text of weird words to the following “At 6th level the bard can start a performance that is always a standard action to speak up to one word per 4 bard levels laden with sonic energy. Each word deals 4d6 points of sonic damage as a ranged touch attack with a range of 30 feet. The bard adds his charisma modifier on damage rolls with weird words. Multiple words that strike the same target stack into a single powerful attack, applying energy resistance and bonuses on damage rolls only once. The bard can target all words at the same or different targets, but he unleashes all words simultaneously. Each word costs 1 round of bardic performance.” This change will be reflected in future errata.

posted Fri, Mar 13, 2015

So, is this worth any sort of PC rebuild for free option? It doesn't change a feat, class-dependent stat, or weapon proficiency, but it does have a major change on how one of the archetype-defining features works.

[Nefreet]

Isn't it better now?

Why would it warrant a rebuild?

[Jeff Merola]

Because it's substantially different enough that it's not better for everyone who built for it?

[Ferious Thune]

I believe this qualifies under the if a class changes clause, which would allow a full rebuild maintaining the same equipment.

[trollbill]

Now on to clarifying Thunder Caller.

[DanWat]

So this still doesn't answer the question of can you use certain feats like PBS and precise shot.

[trollbill]

DanWat wrote:

So this still doesn't answer the question of can you use certain feats like PBS and precise shot.

While I admit the rules are unclear on this. Logically, I don't see why it wouldn't. I also don't see it as being unbalanced in any way so I am not sure why a GM would rule against it.

[GreySector]

DanWat wrote:

So this still doesn't answer the question of can you use certain feats like PBS and precise shot.

They are specifically ranged touch attacks, so I can't think of a reason that Point Blank Shot or Precise Shot wouldn't apply.

[Feral]

Looks like a good change to me. No more stacking damage boni either.

[Black Powder Chocobo]

Yeah, I like it. Gives a bard that wants it an offensive damage tool unique to them. Scales alright and does balance with not being able to buff others when using it.

[deusvult]

Typing the damage as sonic is actually a pretty big change; the OP may have a point there.

The FAQ begs the question of whether the Chelish Diva bard archtype's Devastating Aria should now be RAI'd as sonic damage as well. And if it is.. the Aria needs a rewrite because it'll be useless vs its intended targets when objects take 1/2 damage from energy typed damage....

[kinevon]

Several changes, including fewer "words", since it was, originally, one per level to a max of ten.
Now, it is one when gotten, another one added at 8th, and up to 5 words at 20th level.

It clarifies one of the original confusions, of whether you can target multiple words at the same target, and reduces the die rolls for it to 1-5 d20 (plus rolls for potential crits), and 5x 4d6 maximum in normal Pathfinder.

Still uses Dex mod for to hit, changes it from P, B or S at the Bard's option to Sonic-only. Not a bad change, but a change nonetheless.

While the previous discussion in the big thread shows clearly that it is modeled after Scorching Ray, it is no longer listed as a Ray spell, or the equivalent, so whether weapon adjustments apply, including buffs and penalties, is not clear.

The clarification made by the PDT earlier in the thread, when they made it clear that the original version was supposed to be limited to one word per target, and also said it was considered to be weapon-like for the purposes of things like PBS & Precise Shot, were for that version, not the new version.

I actually have a Sound Striker Bard, made after playing Ruby Phoenix Tournament and seeing a team in there, so I am looking for guidance in how to handle this change. The change will also affect that combat in Ruby Phoenix, since there are Sound Striker Bards in there, and this may change their tactics...

[DanWat]

I don't remember weird words having ever been considered as a ray.

[kinevon]

DanWat wrote:

I don't remember weird words having ever been considered as a ray.

It wasn't, but:

Message 61 or so in this thread:

Pathfinder Design Team Official Rules Response wrote:

The design team and the developers have talked about this ability, and we agree that it is problematic, in that it isn't clear, and (depending on how it's interpreted) is either a very poor ability or a very powerful ability.

Problems include:
* text isn't clear whether you can shoot one target multiple times
* two rolls needed to resolve the effect (ranged touch attack and saving throw)
* damage is low if you can't shoot a particular target more than once, but high if you can
* ability starts with 6 shots when you first gain it, but caps out at 10 shots only 4 levels later

There's no easy or obvious fix for the ability as written.

Rather than quickly putting together an official FAQ or errata with a fix, having people find problems with it, and post revisions to that fix, what we're going to do is present a rough idea of what we think the ability should do, let people pick at it for a while, and revise the wording based on this feedback.

Here is the proposed new wording, parsed over several lines for easier reading:

Weird Words (Su): At 6th level, a sound striker can start a performance as a standard action, lashing out with up to 1 potent sound per bard level (maximum 10), each sound affecting one target within 30 feet. Note: "Up to" means you can choose to fire fewer than the maximum number.
No target can be struck more than once. Note: This makes the intent clear.
Each potent sound expends 1 round of bardic performance. Note: This is new, and keeps the cost from being trivial at higher levels for using the maximum number of sounds.
These are ranged touch attacks.
Each weird word deals 1d8 points of damage plus the bard's Charisma bonus. At 10th, 14th, and 18th level, the damage increases by 1d8. Note: Scaling damage is new. Fort saving throw removed.
The bard chooses what type of damage each word deals (bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing).
This performance replaces suggestion.

Note that the final version was significantly different than this, and that it closely mirrors one of the various suggestions for how to handle the ability during the 781 posts in this thread.

That post cited Scorching Ray, which is a Ray spell. The PDT final version does not.

[Nefreet]

Jeff Merola wrote:

Because it's substantially different enough that it's not better for everyone who built for it?

Yes, the ability is different than before. That's obvious.

But the "build" for it, is the same.

Before, it required a ranged attack roll(s).

It still does, now.

So, if you took feats and abilities to augment your ranged attacks, like Precise Shot, those are still equally of use.

If you didn't, then you're also in the same boat.

I fail to see how people can ask for a rebuild. Especially when what they got, is better.

[kinevon]

Nefreet wrote:

Jeff Merola wrote:

Because it's substantially different enough that it's not better for everyone who built for it?

Yes, the ability is different than before. That's obvious.

But the "build" for it, is the same.

Before, it required a ranged attack roll(s).

It still does, now.

So, if you took feats and abilities to augment your ranged attacks, like Precise Shot, those are still equally of use.

If you didn't, then you're also in the same boat.

I fail to see how people can ask for a rebuild. Especially when what they got, is better.

Well, let's see:

6th level.
Before: 6 shots at 1d8+Cha Mod, going against DR, Fort save for half on each shot
Now: Single shot, 4d6+Cha Mod, going against ER, no save.

All sorts of differences, right there. Any feats or other build points used to improve the DC of the Fort save, or to overcome or bypass the DR? No longer apply.
Anything that might help the sonic part overcome ER? Not there, yet.

Sorry, plenty of differences, not all of them make it better. May not make it worse, but definitely makes it different.

Sure, some of the things that can work with one version will work with the other, but not everything, by far.

[Wraith235]

A lot of people went paladin in order to bypass the DR issue - now DR is no longer a problem.

this in a situation where had the ability been this way to start the paladin choice would never have been made

[Nefreet]

Ah. Multiclassing. Got it.

*sigh*

[Jeff Merola]

Yes, because multiclassing is the only reason why a drastic change to a core ability might cause people to want a rebuild.

Seriously, ignore the fact that the ability might have gotten better and just look at the fact that it was changed quite drastically.

[Nefreet]

I do not see this "drastic change".

To me, it was a ranged attack roll before, and it's a ranged attack roll still.

Whether you're smiting, or investing in feats, or maxing your Dexterity, the basic function is the same.

If you dipped two levels here, and took a Trait there, and bought X item, and so on, just to enhance *one* class feature, then you've built a house of cards anyways. This reminds me of the discussions following Crane Wing.

I personally disagree with such extreme one trick pony builds. If that's your schtick, fine. But you should accept that when your one trick gets nerfed, your character's done.

[Yiroep]

Nefreet wrote:

I personally disagree with such extreme one trick pony builds. If that's your schtick, fine. But you should accept that when your one trick gets nerfed, your character's done.

I disagree with this logic wholeheartedly. Just because someone else's preferred method of playing does not align with yours is not reason to disallow rebuild when rebuild is due. I feel that is way too biased of an opinion.

[Jeff Merola]

The only thing that stayed the same was the ranged attack roll. Everything else changed. If the Kineticist's electric blast shifted from a single attack that does 1d6 every other level plus half-con electric damage to one attack every other level that does 1d6 plus half-con bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage, each granting a save for half, you wouldn't consider that a drastic change?

And I'm sorry you have no compassion for people who have different preferences for character options than you do.

[trollbill]

Nefreet wrote:

I personally disagree with such extreme one trick pony builds. If that's your schtick, fine. But you should accept that when your one trick gets nerfed, your character's done.

I am saddened that you think people who have a different build philosophy than yours should be punished for it. And saddened further by the level of hubris it must take to state that those of differing philosophies should simply accept that punishment as somehow being just.

[Nefreet]

We're certainly of different mindsets here, then, because I see no "punishment" to begin with, other than the limitations the player imposed upon themself.

[Jeff Merola]

I agree, a class feature being changed via FAQ is a limitation imposed on a PC by the player, not by the PDT...wait a second.

[Feral]

The folks in this boat brought it on themselves but that doesn’t mean they don’t deserve a rebuild. They had their fun taking advantage of a broken mechanic but now it’s time to rebuild and move on.

[Jayson MF Kip]

trollbill wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

I personally disagree with such extreme one trick pony builds. If that's your schtick, fine. But you should accept that when your one trick gets nerfed, your character's done.

I am saddened that you think people who have a different build philosophy than yours should be punished for it. And saddened further by the level of hubris it must take to state that those of differing philosophies should simply accept that punishment as somehow being just.

While his judgment may be a little extreme, I have a sneaking suspicion that people who play inside the grey area of the rules have a pretty good sense of when they're playing within the grey area of the rules.

I mean, I know when I do.

[Yiroep]

Jayson MF Kip wrote:

While his judgment may be a little extreme, I have a sneaking suspicion that people who play inside the grey area of the rules have a pretty good sense of when they're playing within the grey area of the rules.

I mean, I know when I do.

Is simply playing the archetype of Sound Striker a rules-bendy gray area?

[Jeff Merola]

Jayson MF Kip wrote:

trollbill wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

I personally disagree with such extreme one trick pony builds. If that's your schtick, fine. But you should accept that when your one trick gets nerfed, your character's done.

I am saddened that you think people who have a different build philosophy than yours should be punished for it. And saddened further by the level of hubris it must take to state that those of differing philosophies should simply accept that punishment as somehow being just.

While his judgment may be a little extreme, I have a sneaking suspicion that people who play inside the grey area of the rules have a pretty good sense of when they're playing within the grey area of the rules.

I mean, I know when I do.

I'm really not a fan of blocking the people who weren't deliberately playing in a grey area from rebuilding because some were.

[TOZ]

Jayson MF Kip wrote:

I mean, I know when I do.

And your experience is everyone's experience?

[Nefreet]

Andrew Roberts wrote:

Jayson MF Kip wrote:

While his judgment may be a little extreme, I have a sneaking suspicion that people who play inside the grey area of the rules have a pretty good sense of when they're playing within the grey area of the rules.

I mean, I know when I do.

Is simply playing the archetype of Sound Striker a rules-bendy gray area?

No, but focusing every resource and character option on one feature of that archetype is building a house of cards, and you should recognize it's a risk.

[Jayson MF Kip]

TOZ wrote:

Jayson MF Kip wrote:

I mean, I know when I do.

And your experience is everyone's experience?

My experience should be everyone's experience. It's only fair.

[Jeff Merola]

Nefreet wrote:

Andrew Roberts wrote:

Jayson MF Kip wrote:

While his judgment may be a little extreme, I have a sneaking suspicion that people who play inside the grey area of the rules have a pretty good sense of when they're playing within the grey area of the rules.

I mean, I know when I do.

Is simply playing the archetype of Sound Striker a rules-bendy gray area?

No, but focusing every resource and character option on one feature of that archetype is building a house of cards, and you should recognize it's a risk.

Your argument is coming from the position that you either ignored the ability (in which case why take the archetype?) or focused everything you had on it. I'm pretty sure there are options in between.

[Jayson MF Kip]

Andrew Roberts wrote:

Jayson MF Kip wrote:

While his judgment may be a little extreme, I have a sneaking suspicion that people who play inside the grey area of the rules have a pretty good sense of when they're playing within the grey area of the rules.

I mean, I know when I do.

Is simply playing the archetype of Sound Striker a rules-bendy gray area?

Of course not. It's also still playable.

[trollbill]

Jayson MF Kip wrote:

trollbill wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

I personally disagree with such extreme one trick pony builds. If that's your schtick, fine. But you should accept that when your one trick gets nerfed, your character's done.

I am saddened that you think people who have a different build philosophy than yours should be punished for it. And saddened further by the level of hubris it must take to state that those of differing philosophies should simply accept that punishment as somehow being just.

While his judgment may be a little extreme, I have a sneaking suspicion that people who play inside the grey area of the rules have a pretty good sense of when they're playing within the grey area of the rules.

I mean, I know when I do.

Except he wasn't making judgments about people who build characters in the grey area. He was making judgments about people who build one trick ponies. Those are two different things. The price people should pay for building one trick ponies is that sometimes their trick doesn't work, not that sometimes the powers that be may effectively retire their character by making their one trick not work at all and then not letting them rebuild it.

[trollbill]

Nefreet wrote:

We're certainly of different mindsets here, then, because I see no "punishment" to begin with, other than the limitations the player imposed upon themself.

Since that statement can be applied to any character build, why allow rebuilds at all?

Spoiler:

Here's a clue. It has to do with the powers that be realizing "fun" is more important to the well being of PFS than elitism is.

[Jeff Merola]

Jayson MF Kip wrote:

Andrew Roberts wrote:

Jayson MF Kip wrote:

While his judgment may be a little extreme, I have a sneaking suspicion that people who play inside the grey area of the rules have a pretty good sense of when they're playing within the grey area of the rules.

I mean, I know when I do.

Is simply playing the archetype of Sound Striker a rules-bendy gray area?

Of course not. It's also still playable.

I was not aware that the other rules for rebuilding cared at all about the playability of those effected.

[Nefreet]

Jeff Merola wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

Andrew Roberts wrote:

Jayson MF Kip wrote:

While his judgment may be a little extreme, I have a sneaking suspicion that people who play inside the grey area of the rules have a pretty good sense of when they're playing within the grey area of the rules.

I mean, I know when I do.

Is simply playing the archetype of Sound Striker a rules-bendy gray area?

No, but focusing every resource and character option on one feature of that archetype is building a house of cards, and you should recognize it's a risk.

Your argument is coming from the position that you either ignored the ability (in which case why take the archetype?) or focused everything you had on it. I'm pretty sure there are options in between.

Im betting those aren't the ppl crying for a rebuild.

[Jeff Merola]

Nefreet wrote:

Jeff Merola wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

Andrew Roberts wrote:

Jayson MF Kip wrote:

While his judgment may be a little extreme, I have a sneaking suspicion that people who play inside the grey area of the rules have a pretty good sense of when they're playing within the grey area of the rules.

I mean, I know when I do.

Is simply playing the archetype of Sound Striker a rules-bendy gray area?

No, but focusing every resource and character option on one feature of that archetype is building a house of cards, and you should recognize it's a risk.

Your argument is coming from the position that you either ignored the ability (in which case why take the archetype?) or focused everything you had on it. I'm pretty sure there are options in between.

Im betting those aren't the ppl crying for a rebuild.

And I'm pretty sure that shouldn't matter.

[Yiroep]

I feel the cases have been stated and opinions have been sprawled out by now. I feel that there is little more to discuss on the topic other than whether it actually warrants a rebuild or not by the rules as it is now.

[trollbill]

Andrew Roberts wrote:

I feel that there is little more to discuss on the topic other than whether it actually warrants a rebuild or not by the rules as it is now.

That's all it ever should have warranted.

[Andrew Christian]

currently the rules of the Guide to Organized Play v6.0, pages 27 and 28, do not support a rebuild. No feat or trait was changed or removed. No class, prestige class, or class feature dependent ability score was altered. Nothing about the class changed so that you no longer have proficiency in certain weapons.

By the rules, this change does not fall under any auspices of a rebuild opportunity.

You can petition for one if you like. But currently the rules do not support a rebuild.

I am not going to get into the argument about whether I feel this deserves a rebuild or not. As that isn't what this thread is about. Its asking if one is allowed. Currently one is not.

[Kegdrainer]

I would suggest then if the Powers that be make a change as this FAQ has done, they need to spell out if a rebuild is authorized or not at that time.

(I do not have a Sound Striker so it does not effect me)

[Andrew Christian]

The FAQ is done by the design team. It has nothing to do with PFS, other than PFS abides by the FAQ.

[Cao Phen]

If we can get Mike Brock to pop in here and say Yes or No to rebuilding, it can keep things simple.

[Da Goblin]

I actually have a Sound Striker that was in process of re-training (I had done the calculations and would have put it on my next chronicle - so this change was great timing). If the FAQ had been another month in the making, I would most likely have been a Thunder-Caller.

I had originally taken Sound Striker because it was an Archtype that worked with Detective - I really didn't look that closely at the abilities. When I reached 6th level and got Weird Words and went to the rules board to figure out how they worked is when I discovered the problems with the archtype - and the fact that it was a "grey-area". After living with the reactions from judges when I said I had a Sound Striker for two levels, and the fact that it didn't look like it would be resolved anytime soon, I looked into re-training...

So, I don't really need a re-build. I have no plan to take one if it is allowed. Re-training will cover any "corrections" I need to do with my PC (same as always). But I wouldn't object to anyone else getting one, limited or otherwise. I can even understand the need. Heck, the major abilities of the Archtype changed.

And you know what? I want to have the players at my table happy with the PCs they are running. This isn't "Players vs. Me". The rules changed. Why can't we give them a "re-set"?

[pauljathome]

Andrew Christian wrote:

No class, prestige class, or class feature dependent ability score was altered.

The wording in the guide is unclear.

"If a class, prestige class or class feature-dependent ability score is altered" can legitimately be parsed as "if a class is altered" or as "if a class feature-dependent ability score is altered". English is ambiguous that way.

The former makes more sense to me and so I think a rebuild is allowed.

I think we'd all agree that changing a wizard so that they threw cleric spells instead should allow a rebuild. With my interpretation of the above, that is guide approved. With yours, it is not.

[Andrew Christian]

It does not mean that, and lists aren't parsed that way.

No rebuild is allowed. There is no reason for Mike to comment.

[UndeadMitch]

I have no dog in the fight, but how is an archetype not being altered is not the same as a class being altered? An archetype is just an alternate class, right? This is an actual question, I don't really care one way or another if Sound Striker Bards get rebuilds or not.

Edit to sound a bit less confrontational.

[Fomsie]

I have to agree with Andrew in this case, the class didn't change, in fact the archetype didn't change either... the same feats and abilities apply as before... all that happened was the application of one ability has been clarified.

The intent of a rebuild seems to be for those times when the functionality of a class changes so that current abilities no longer work or apply as they did before, not because the change to an ability is more or less powerful than before and you no longer like how it works. If the FAQ alters the end result of the ability and you aren't happy with it, that doesn't doesn't mean there should be a rebuild.