I was really glad to see the back of the ruling as one of my players whined about my house rule banning it. No he has shut up. I do agree that many prestige classes are poor and would not object to improving some
My biggest pain was loosing the magic crafting feat access from SLAs. I was all ready to pick up Craft Staff, but did not level until just after the reversal.
I also liked SLAs for Arcane Strike.
I never really thought about PF Prestige Class access, since they lacked the very Prestige they were named for. In 3.5, if you wanted your character's development to change direction, you selected a PrC. You lost some and you gained more. In PF, you loose a lot and gain little. Archetypes assume you know your character's future when first level. With home games, you never know what adventure would happen next. Your group might go vampire hunting or chasing lost treasures. Those choices make archetype choice at first level great or horrible, but you cannot change that choice. With PrCs, you customized your character based on current expectations.
/cevah
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm posting on a phone, so I'm going to repost part of an old post to make my point - if it reads familiar to you, you can safely skip to the last paragraph.
On the one hand the idea that you have a single SLA and that gives the same caster level and qualification options as a full caster always struck me as a little unreasonable. It meant that some class options and races were massively better than others - in my experience the vast majority of Mystic Theurges were either a race with a 2nd level SLA, a cleric with the trickery domain for the copycat SLA and so on. From that angle I'm happy that the new FAQ exists.
On the other hand I liked the result of the old FAQ. Gnomes should be able to learn Arcane Strike. Master dwarven smiths should have a better crafting option available than 'Master Craftsman'. Theurges and Tricksters should both get a little help for meeting their prerequisites. Leaving the loophole in the rules allowed me to fix several problems in the game itself at a minor cost without having to add ever more houserules - for example a SLA allowed me to make my Dr. Frankenstein Alchemist miniboss with Craft Construct even though alchemists don't qualify for crafting feats.
The previous SLA ruling created a lot of mess and was fairly counterintuitive, but it allowed for build options and character concepts that are otherwise hard to get off the ground. Ideally I'd still like Paizo to keep the SLA ruling as it is now, but also go back and actually properly resolve the problems the old FAQ fixed. For starters by easing the requirements for the hybrid prestige classes and adding a viable crafting option for non-caster crafters.
If that is not an option, I'd prefer to see the FAQ reversed. An ugly fix is better than no fix.
|
How did it do that, exactly?
A hell of a lot of people liked it. It worked perfectly for what it was meant to do.
"People in PFS whined and stomped their feet" is not the same as "proof that it was wrong".
If you're not in PFS, you can houserule it and have it back the way you want it.
The SLA loophole for early-entry prestige classes was a TERRIBLE FAQ, and eliminating it was one of the wisest decisions the devs made.
The Pathfinder system is fiddly and complex enough. Allowing a handful of unintended edge-case rule interactions to allow you to do something that is very clearly not intended by the rules is simply not a good idea. Yeah, some of the prestige classes are underpowered... but there's lots of power imbalances in the game. Allowing specific crazy fiddily stuff that undermines the clear intent of prestige classes to require you to be level 5 or 6 before starting it just turns the rules system into a nightmare of special cases, where the game is no longer a roleplaying game, but a particularly poorly-designed and haphazard rules-lawyer game.
Getting rid of the "SLA count as spells prerequisite" was an extremely positive change. I hope they never, ever undo that change.
If you don't like it, houserule it in your game.
We just need an advanced prestige guide to replace all of the popular prestige classes with full classes and archetypes.
If that is not an option, I'd prefer to see the FAQ reversed. An ugly fix is better than no fix.
This gets my vote for the most sensible framing so far. Even if I am not totally aligned to the conclusion.
The ruling was heavily used as an exploit. But that exploitation occurred in lieu of a system that contained parts otherwise (relatively) neglected.
Now, does that mean Eldrich Knight/Mystic Theurge/etc are useless without? No. Builds exist that one can argue are useful themselves. Heck, EK is already plenty powerful with Scarred Witch Doctor in use for entry (aside: VMC battle oracle to save a level, anyone?) so one could hardly call the ruling alone overtly game-breaking. Conversely though, one couldn't call everything it was used for never used. Just that some PrCs came outside corner-case boxes - Mystic Theurge is a not-bad option in a necromancer build, for example. Let alone these are options that have long seen a degree of replacement by archetypes.
That final point is something that I think is key here. Considering the whole chassis of classes is just that - a chassis, by which characters are built; then a re-introduction is unnecessary provided classes/archetypes fill the concept niche. Excluding multi-classing prestige classes, you can just enter the PrC later without falling behind.
The reason I exclude there is that roleplaying a character claims are all well and good; but I suspect I would commit self-flagellation before I met a player who actively wanted to fall behind their group. Which many multi-classing PrCs are felt to do, over the course of a game.
Unless you're using those apparently terrible edge-cases. Because yes, I would honestly say that the option in utility over the early-entries in question is between two forms of edge case.
We just need an advanced prestige guide to replace all of the popular prestige classes with full classes and archetypes.
In conclusion: Kind of this, yeah.
Now for feats, like Kudaku mentioned above? I thought it quite elegant.
On another note: It is appreciable that most games carry the possibility of players just house ruling at will; but developer rulings do themselves, frame what players consider reasonable. Mostly because anyone trying to GM without masses of system mastery makes the reasonable assumption that developers have a strong grasp on maintaining game balance (complaints about the d20 system notwithstanding). So I would have to call the argument silly.
Honestly...if this makes prestige classes too weak, that seems to be a problem with prestige classes, not the ruling.
I think generic prestige classes are basically a legacy Pathfinder inherited by 3.5. I think Paizo would rather get rid of them entirely, and I would be honestly surprised to see them included in any sort of core rulebook revision.
They have a "history of what the SLA ruling did in the first place" in places other than PFS? I'd be interested to see it. If they are basing it JUST off of PFS, a house rule for that would seem to be more appropriate.
Secondly, they themselves said they might reverse the early access to PrC's if it created issues but never said they'd reverse the entire ruling for things like arcane strike and crafting. IMO it's another example of using a hammer instead of a scalpel. Was there an issue with arcane strike or crafting in PFS from the FAQ I'm unaware of? [they've already house-rules crafting out]
Thirdly, if there was a 'rush' of early access characters it might just be because it was a brand new thing to play with. I'd expect a surge occult characters when the book comes out too. I don't think there was enough time for the shine to wear off before the FAQ reversal.
I guess we're going to ignore that when they first allowed it with the initial FAQ they flat out said, "This isn't how we wanted it to work, we are going to see what happens by allowing it"?
Why would they possibly reverse it again? It is quite obviously working exactly how they intended it, like they said in the beginning.
Just that some PrCs came outside corner-case boxes - Mystic Theurge is a not-bad option in a necromancer build, for example.
A bit off topic, but i'm not seeing it. How does MT help necro? Looking at the build it seems like an absolutely awful idea, to be honest - you delay animate dead and create undead, channels and two ENTIRE spell levels in exchange for... some marginal use wizard spells and maaybe more HD worth of animate dead at higher levels assuming your DM interprets the spell text that way. If you don't want to delay animate dead (you really shouldn't delay animate dead), the extra HD only kick in at level 9 after a whole bunch of awful levels, and then you don't see the (questionable) fruits of the build until super high levels where most campaigns have fallen apart or ended anyway.
I can't see anything a MT does that would be better than just straight cleric. If you want the extra HD for animate dead, go agent of the grave (a sub-optimal choice to begin with anyway hoenstly).
I guess we're going to ignore that when they first allowed it with the initial FAQ they flat out said, "This isn't how we wanted it to work, we are going to see what happens by allowing it"?
Why would they possibly reverse it again? It is quite obviously working exactly how they intended it, like they said in the beginning.
You missed ME mention it then. They said the PrC part might be reversed. They said NOTHING of the rest of the FAQ. So I have no idea if SLA for craft/arcane strike feats was intended or not as I don't recall seeing THAT called out as unintended.
You missed ME mention it then. They said the PrC part might be reversed. They said NOTHING of the rest of the FAQ. So I have no idea if SLA for craft/arcane strike feats was intended or not as I don't recall seeing THAT called out as unintended.I guess we're going to ignore that when they first allowed it with the initial FAQ they flat out said, "This isn't how we wanted it to work, we are going to see what happens by allowing it"?
Why would they possibly reverse it again? It is quite obviously working exactly how they intended it, like they said in the beginning.
I didn't miss you saying anything, we posted at the same time.
Given the FAQ I'd be hard pressed to say it was intended to work, as it doesn't now that it doesn't.
I didn't miss you saying anything, we posted at the same time.You missed ME mention it then. They said the PrC part might be reversed. They said NOTHING of the rest of the FAQ. So I have no idea if SLA for craft/arcane strike feats was intended or not as I don't recall seeing THAT called out as unintended.I guess we're going to ignore that when they first allowed it with the initial FAQ they flat out said, "This isn't how we wanted it to work, we are going to see what happens by allowing it"?
Why would they possibly reverse it again? It is quite obviously working exactly how they intended it, like they said in the beginning.
Yes, we posted around the same time as I did and maybe that caused you to miss what I said. It doesn't alter that you didn't see my post mentioning the same thing.
FAQ: They altered their view on the subject several times. Without an actual posting of their intent, IMO it's up for grabs. The RAW doesn't always follow the intent. For example, the Titan Mauler doesn't work as it was intended to. Crane wing's original intent changed to a new intent. A monks flurry was intended to work one way and then the intent and RAW changed with a new FAQ. Heck we got a new rogue. Nothing is written in stone.
I don't play PFS, I play home games. But when I GM, one of my house rules is that almost every PrC can be gotten into at 4th level, even if I have to work with the player to tweak the requirements. It's easier than trying to keep up with all the back and forth of rulings that I may or may not agree with and allows the character to get closer to a capstone if we aren't playing to higher levels. That said, I haven't had a game that went past 14th level.
But when we have what their intent was, and they were letting it go to see how things panned out, I don't see how or why they would change it. A poorly edited rule is completely different from a reversal of intent. And the SLA is a reversal of a reversal.
Crane wing got FAQ'd after it became "disruptive" and nullified encounters. It needed to be changed for that reason for the game they envisioned.
Flurry was a carry over from 3.5 honestly. And we know how changes have occurred behind the scene from that edition to PFRPG. and once they realized what they intended and what it was, they made the change.
For SLA's we have the actual intent for once. I just don't see why they would change it after allowing it for how long? And making the FAQ reversal would be the final nail in the coffin so to speak. We knew the FAQ was a trial and not how they intended things to work, the reversal is just their way of saying "yep we didn't like it", back to how we think things should have worked from the start, as intended.
For SLA's we have the actual intent for once. I just don't see why they would change it after allowing it for how long? And making the FAQ reversal would be the final nail in the coffin so to speak. We knew the FAQ was a trial and not how they intended things to work, the reversal is just their way of saying "yep we didn't like it", back to how we think things should have worked from the start, as intended.
You misrepresented it again. The whole FAQ was NEVER said to be a trial. The only part that was mentioned in that way was the PrC part of it. If we're going by that footnote as intent, they went against their own intent by reversing the whole FAQ.
And to be clear, "Crane wing got FAQ'd after it became "disruptive" and nullified encounters" in PFS. I don't recall many outside PFS finding any issue with it. It needed to be changed for how PFS was envisioned, not the game as a whole.
And that's pretty much what happened with SLA's. PFS whined 'OMG, people are actually USING PrC's in PFS, 'burn it with fire!!!' and it got changed. Outside of there, the response was much more balanced. I dislike that PFS leads the game instead of them sorting out which problems are PFS ones and which ones are game wide ones and targeting fixes to actually target the places where there is a problem. Too often them hammer a problem to death when a much simpler, easier and smaller change would work.
For SLA's we have the actual intent for once. I just don't see why they would change it after allowing it for how long? And making the FAQ reversal would be the final nail in the coffin so to speak. We knew the FAQ was a trial and not how they intended things to work, the reversal is just their way of saying "yep we didn't like it", back to how we think things should have worked from the start, as intended.You misrepresented it again. The whole FAQ was NEVER said to be a trial. The only part that was mentioned in that way was the PrC part of it. If we're going by that footnote as intent, they went against their own intent by reversing the whole FAQ.
And to be clear, "Crane wing got FAQ'd after it became "disruptive" and nullified encounters" in PFS. I don't recall many outside PFS finding any issue with it. It needed to be changed for how PFS was envisioned, not the game as a whole.
And that's pretty much what happened with SLA's. PFS whined 'OMG, people are actually USING PrC's in PFS, 'burn it with fire!!!' and it got changed. Outside of there, the response was much more balanced. I dislike that PFS leads the game instead of them sorting out which problems are PFS ones and which ones are game wide ones and targeting fixes to actually target the places where there is a problem. Too often them hammer a problem to death when a much simpler, easier and smaller change would work.
The game as whole is run and designed with Golorian in mind, not your game or how you see it working, not my game and how I see it working. But their game and how they see it. We are buying their house rules and homebrew material for 3.5. Which incidentally is somewhat connected to PFS despite how anyone wants to view it. PFS is a large portion of their profits, probably much larger than the vocal minority on the boards. Guess which way the company is going to go with that? No need to guess, they've already shown us.
So yes they absolutely did reverse their intent with the initial FAQ, they said as much. So now we have them saying with the most recent one in no uncertain terms "We didn't like how it went, we're going back to how we originally intended it because of how it worked out while we allowed it".
Just that some PrCs came outside corner-case boxes - Mystic Theurge is a not-bad option in a necromancer build, for example.A bit off topic, but i'm not seeing it. How does MT help necro? Looking at the build it seems like an absolutely awful idea, to be honest - you delay animate dead and create undead, channels and two ENTIRE spell levels in exchange for... some marginal use wizard spells and maaybe more HD worth of animate dead at higher levels assuming your DM interprets the spell text that way. If you don't want to delay animate dead (you really shouldn't delay animate dead), the extra HD only kick in at level 9 after a whole bunch of awful levels, and then you don't see the (questionable) fruits of the build until super high levels where most campaigns have fallen apart or ended anyway.
I can't see anything a MT does that would be better than just straight cleric. If you want the extra HD for animate dead, go agent of the grave (a sub-optimal choice to begin with anyway hoenstly).
Or oracle of bones... oracle of bones is actually kinda awesome :P
Oh and the Grave Witch is wicked :P
I never said Paizo was going to rewrite Prestige Classes. Or really even that they should.
What I am saying is games are usually better without loopholes. Playing games is usually better without having players (or GMs) looking for ways to exploit the rules and break the system.
Sure, not everybody agrees with that (mostly the people who like exploiting rules and breaking systems), but I think, probably, EVERY game designer in the world would agree with that (except maybe the guys who designed Paranoia).
Maybe it's time for the vocal minority (that's us, here on the forums) to speak up and make it known that we want a great game, not a good game full of broken, outdated, or obsolete mechanics. Fix the game, balance the unbalanced, and for crying out loud, fix the exploits.
Or, at least, if not that, then certainly not the opposite - let's not invite more exploits...
Isn't the entire 3.x engine predicated on the fact that people are going to find loopholes and combinations of feats/classes/spells/etc. that make them extremely strong?
I'd rather they remade the PrCs to allow early entry rather than force you to be some race with a SLA or pick up some domain that gets a high level spell as an SLA early, or whatnot.
It always felt loopholey to me, rather than clever combination.
I'd rather they remade the PrCs to allow early entry rather than force you to be some race with a SLA or pick up some domain that gets a high level spell as an SLA early, or whatnot.
It always felt loopholey to me, rather than clever combination.
But wasn't part of the revamp of PrCs by Paizo to make them more normalized and less effective than they were previously? At least that is what I remember from beta discussions. They didn't want PrCs to be this wide range of entrance levels they previously had and essentially designed them to be attainable early (effectively 5-6th level) on so that they were usable for a significant portion of a characters career. The other complaint was that there was no drawback to taking most PrCs (notably caster classes) so they wanted it to be a deliberate choice versus a way to gain abilities while still having almost to full progression of existing class abilities. That and not wanting PrCs to be a class unto themselves (why archmages and such weren't ever ported over).
Part of the design philosophy of PFRPG was to make core classes more attractive, early entry to PrC is pretty much the opposite of that.
So yes they absolutely did reverse their intent with the initial FAQ, they said as much. So now we have them saying with the most recent one in no uncertain terms "We didn't like how it went, we're going back to how we originally intended it because of how it worked out while we allowed it".
LOL You could have said the same thing after the first orc/elf blood FAQ, the first flurry FAQ or after the rogue was made. Intent isn't written in stone and can change/shift over time. So I'm going to disagree with "no uncertain terms" as things have changed in the past and will change in the future. I can only hope this is one of those things that does. Lots of people said that "no uncertain terms" we'd never see a fixed rogue... Time proved them wrong.
So yes they absolutely did reverse their intent with the initial FAQ, they said as much. So now we have them saying with the most recent one in no uncertain terms "We didn't like how it went, we're going back to how we originally intended it because of how it worked out while we allowed it".LOL You could have said the same thing after the first orc/elf blood FAQ, the first flurry FAQ or after the rogue was made. Intent isn't written in stone and can change/shift over time. So I'm going to disagree with "no uncertain terms" as things have changed in the past and will change in the future. I can only hope this is one of those things that does. Lots of people said that "no uncertain terms" we'd never see a fixed rogue... Time proved them wrong.
Which would be reasonable, if we didn't have them state outright when they put the initial FAQ out, that it wasn't their intention to have it work that way. That they specifically said that this was a test to see how it worked and we now have them effectively stating "Yeah, no, we don't want it to work" with the new FAQ.
Be my guest to hold your breath.
If they were in the fence about it before, they've chosen a side, the one they were on before. You just don't like the decision. What legitimate reason can you give for them to go back to doing things the way they didn't like before? Given the backlash from previous FAQs, do you honestly think they didn't seriously think this through before putting it out there? There was no time limit imposed, no need for a rush on the decision.
Fixing the rogue sold them books. Changing the FAQ doesn't do anything of the sort. Hell, allowing the FAQ for that amount of time might have sold them some books honestly, because we had that string of elemental outsider books. Who is to say it wasn't just a smart business decision to allow it for a bit and then put forth the final decision they already agreed on?
It opened crafting to mundanes of some races. Sadly not dwarves I think, but gnomes are also traditionally crafty and in some traditions so are elves.
Nowadays Heroes of the Wild has an alternate race trait that grants dwarves druid SLA whenever they're in a specific terrain, which allows them to qualify. Back when the FAQ was issued that book wasn't released so I typically used one of the cantrip traits for dwarf craftsmen, such as Lightbringer.
I'd rather they remade the PrCs to allow early entry rather than force you to be some race with a SLA or pick up some domain that gets a high level spell as an SLA early, or whatnot.
It always felt loopholey to me, rather than clever combination.
Redoing PrCs would be ideal, but runs into the practical issue that Paizo is extremely unlikely to ever do that. By all indications, Paizo only left PrCs in the game at all for legacy/backwards compatibility and the devs would be fine with removing them completely. A massive Unchained-style rework of Prestige Classes is about as likely as Paizo releasing "Ultimate Martial-Caster Disparity Fix"
The SLA trick might be a bit of a wonky loophole, but at least it provided an imperfect partial solution to the problem. Which IMO is better than a perfect solution we never get to play.
Just that some PrCs came outside corner-case boxes - Mystic Theurge is a not-bad option in a necromancer build, for example....
I can't see anything a MT does that would be better than just straight cleric. If you want the extra HD for animate dead, go agent of the grave (a sub-optimal choice to begin with anyway hoenstly).
The rest of your post is a thoroughly valid criticism. And does lend to a series of caveats I should have given (much as they weaken the point) but that extra HD is entirely why I'd argue it's not absolutely awful. Those pools of HD, if I recall, are validly able to spill into each other. Yes, Agent of the Grave would be sufficient but MT's greater number of levels allows potentially more. The entirely premise of my claim is someone presumably wanting that expansive pool more than...well, everything else.
That all said it is, I acknowledge, a paper-thin defense for a class that otherwise nails its own coffin on the prerequisites.
Or oracle of bones... oracle of bones is actually kinda awesome :POh and the Grave Witch is wicked :P
Old version of Juju oracle still wins out. I must admit.
If they were in the fence about it before, they've chosen a side, the one they were on before. You just don't like the decision. What legitimate reason can you give for them to go back to doing things the way they didn't like before?
For the sake of not shooting wide in trying to respond: Define legitimate. Since I am personally under the assumption that "I feel X would (un-)facilitate fun" seems a valid reason to broach whether something is good, or bad, design.
General two cents though: A personal reading of the posts since my last one rather reinforces the point that the support for early entry is centered mostly around "This game contained trap options without it; the ruling fixed the trap." Since the biggest traps on that are: Eldrich Knight, Mystic Theurge, and Arcane trickster (as i read it), it seems subsequently more expedient to simply look at the concepts that these covered/allowed that aren't currently plausible - and simply state demand for these things.
One thing to realize is that PrC's don't seem to work well with Pathfinder's design goals, so something that benefits PrC's while causing issues with other areas (like the SLA rule and things like Divine Protections) are probably not going to happen/last.
Their apparent design goal is to get rid of multiclassing by making multiclassers suffer. PrCs are a variation of multiclassing, but focusing on some aspects of your character at the expense of other aspects. PF made most of them at the expense of all aspects of your character.
For reference, I know SKR did a blog post on Pathfinder and PrCs. Basically, they are balanced/designed around levels 6-15. Because that's when characters are supposed to get them.
Got a link?
For prestige classes to work, they honestly need to be resigned to 15 levels instead of 10 levels instead of keeping them 10 levels cause that's how 3.5 did it.)
Actually, a redesign that allowed advancement of some of the base class features would be easier. For example, counting PrC levels as additional base levels for scaling class features. Example for a fighter: You get the additional levels toward the plus Armor Training gives. However, you don't advance bonus feats.
/cevah
I think this is the link.
Ouch! SKR talked a lot about optimization, power levels, and DPS, but not once about role playing.
While he explained the problems with PrCs, I thought of another way to deal with the issue: Scale power to character level not class level. You loose access to new features while you are in the PrC, but you pick them up when you return. Since they scale with character level, they are of appropriate power level. What you miss out on is new class features since you don't have the class level the feature comes in at. This would also make PrCs work at any level range, and would be viable at all levels.
His arguments about using archetypes rather than PrCs makes the assumption that you want to be the exact same character for your entire career. While new class features at higher levels are an incentive to stall in the class, what if you want to become something else? With archetypes, you must extensively retrain. With multiclassing or PrCs, you have no waiting.
Best part of the clip was when he commented about feeling underpowered and a subtitle said "There make a pill for that (check your spam folder)" :-)
Oh. Thanks for the link.
/cevah
To be fair, they don't penalize multiclassing (as in Paizo). They encourage single class progression.
They were very upfront about that back when they were doing the Beta. That is why the favored class bonus and capstone abilities exist among other things. PFRPG has no penalties associated with multiclassing just like 3.5 (though 3.0 might have, not 100% sure right now, but I seem to recall level gap and xp penalty). Stating they penalize multiclassing is pretty much an outright lie in attempt to make a point. Which doesn't help your point whatever it is.
I think this is the link.Ouch! SKR talked a lot about optimization, power levels, and DPS, but not once about role playing.
While he explained the problems with PrCs, I thought of another way to deal with the issue: Scale power to character level not class level. You loose access to new features while you are in the PrC, but you pick them up when you return. Since they scale with character level, they are of appropriate power level. What you miss out on is new class features since you don't have the class level the feature comes in at. This would also make PrCs work at any level range, and would be viable at all levels.
His arguments about using archetypes rather than PrCs makes the assumption that you want to be the exact same character for your entire career. While new class features at higher levels are an incentive to stall in the class, what if you want to become something else? With archetypes, you must extensively retrain. With multiclassing or PrCs, you have no waiting.
Best part of the clip was when he commented about feeling underpowered and a subtitle said "There make a pill for that (check your spam folder)" :-)
Oh. Thanks for the link.
/cevah
Scaling abilities would just put PrCs back to their old place of "take this - get new abilities, don't get penalized, so no reason not to take them", which was another reason why they didn't want them as they were way back in the beginning. A pure power by taking PrC instead of staying the class you were.
I don't understand why it was counterintuitive that "X can cast Y" meant "X can cast Y"
"they are spells but they aren't" IS more messy.