Please no more nerfs

[pauljathome]

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

But as a player, I find it frustrating that the team spends so much time fixing things that I don't see as broken.

It is abundantly clear that "the team" sees balance and power very, very differently than many of the posters here.

And I'm not at all convinced that the reason for that difference in opinion is that they see a bigger picture than we do. The strong impression that I get is that many of "the team" are just used to playing a game where, for whatever reason, significant gaming of the system just doesn't occur.

[TOZ]

Ah, what a world that would be.

[RoshVagari]

This is an easy problem for the community to self-regulate. The mechanism is already in place.

Pursuant to the PFS rules, a player must own the book that contains whatever resource their character is using and have it in their possession at the table when playing. Ostensibly, this is so the GM, if unfamiliar with what the thing does can reference it. It is also a good business model for Paizo to sell books and thus make money. The book is the authority the player has to cite both his ability to use a resource, and to define what that resource does. If the player doesn't have the book, then the GM can rule that resource inadmissible for play.

Ergo, the books are the canon. Have the book; you're good to go. Don't have the book; you're not getting to use that fancy Feat Chain spread out over 4 books. Until, suddenly, years after you purchased the books you needed, and have played a character or characters with resources from these books you purchased, the leadership decides something needs to be nerfed. The why is inconsequential. Frankly, who cares, which I'll get to in a minute.

Unless you come to the boards and keep up with whatever minutia the leadership wants to crap all over this week, you wouldn't know that the contents of your books are now obsolete. You're first likely to learn it when some GM who does come to the boards crashes down on you for using an obsolete resource, and won't let you play your character that you had already paid the entrance fee for by buying the books in the first place.

Well, the way I see it, unless the GM owns the superseding book with the new resource language, then the player's resource wins that argument. If the GM can't produce a copy of the book with the new language for the resource, but the player went to all the trouble to purchase and lug around what was a good resource until he sat down to play with that GM, than there is no errata.

TL:DR -- if the GM can't produce a copy of the product with the errata, then there is no errata, and the player's book is still the authority that overrides some fun sponge blog post by the developers. So, who cares why they nerf things?

[SCPRedMage]

MisterSlanky wrote:

2) I don't own the legal source anymore where before I didn't need to.

This is factually incorrect.

The Core Assumption says it's assumed to own those books, meaning you're supposed to own them, but GMs don't need to worry about asking players to prove that they own them.

But you're still required to own them, to play PFS at all, but it was more of a "hey, you're new, so you don't have to buy these right away, but get them eventually".

Which is why the Field Guide was removed from the Core Assumption: to reduce barriers to entry. Whereas before we were asking new players to buy two books, now we only ask them to buy one.

So they didn't remove material you could use; if you were doing what you were supposed to be doing, the change didn't affect anything, because you were supposed to already have the book.

Also, completely irrelevant to what I was saying. My point is that three books from the Campaign and Companion lines being PFS-related doesn't mean that the Core line, or even other books from the Campaign or Companion lines, are in way way written with PFS in mind.

[Woran]

Harold Ervin wrote:

With player benefits disappearing (Where'd that Retail Incentive Program go?)...

I dont know, were did you make it go? It still exists. You're a venture agent. If you are not using it on your location the only one that can fix that is you.

[Murdock Mudeater]

RoshVagari wrote:

TL:DR -- if the GM can't produce a copy of the product with the errata, then there is no errata, and the player's...

Nobody wants this. Errata should solve issues, so denying errata should be a mistake. My copy of CRB directly contradicts itself many times due to it being a first printing. Most of the material is still useful, and much better than not having a copy of the book physically present while playing, but denial of errata would be a mistake.

Anyway, took me a while, but I figured it out. Paizo treats Pathfinder materials as if they were a magazine subscription. No real support for old issues, they'll just fix it with the next issue (or get it wrong, and fix it with the issue after that). Not a bad model, but misleading when you think of them as books or game resources, rather than cheap magazines. And that's why they sell the PDFs of the "back issues" so cheaply on humble bundle, despite this undercutting the local stores and discouraging players to acquire physical copies of the rules.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

John Compton wrote:

I gather there's some confusion and concern about legal versions of resources.

Should the Additional Resources for Adventurer's Guide require using the more recent version of a legal character option, having any version of that resource will be sufficient for Additional Resources purposes. You don't need to buy a new book to use an option you already had.

Thank you for confirming it, I think we always assumed this to be the solution (based on how the team dealt with items like the Jingasa which was changed by a new printing but also available from another older source), but it is nice to read it. ^^

[Sebastian Hirsch]

RoshVagari wrote:

This is an easy problem for the community to self-regulate. The mechanism is already in place.

Pursuant to the PFS rules, a player must own the book that contains whatever resource their character is using and have it in their possession at the table when playing. Ostensibly, this is so the GM, if unfamiliar with what the thing does can reference it. It is also a good business model for Paizo to sell books and thus make money. The book is the authority the player has to cite both his ability to use a resource, and to define what that resource does. If the player doesn't have the book, then the GM can rule that resource inadmissible for play.

Ergo, the books are the canon. Have the book; you're good to go. Don't have the book; you're not getting to use that fancy Feat Chain spread out over 4 books. Until, suddenly, years after you purchased the books you needed, and have played a character or characters with resources from these books you purchased, the leadership decides something needs to be nerfed. The why is inconsequential. Frankly, who cares, which I'll get to in a minute.

Unless you come to the boards and keep up with whatever minutia the leadership wants to crap all over this week, you wouldn't know that the contents of your books are now obsolete. You're first likely to learn it when some GM who does come to the boards crashes down on you for using an obsolete resource, and won't let you play your character that you had already paid the entrance fee for by buying the books in the first place.

Well, the way I see it, unless the GM owns the superseding book with the new resource language, then the player's resource wins that argument. If the GM can't produce a copy of the book with the new language for the resource, but the player went to all the trouble to purchase and lug around what was a good resource until he sat down to play with that GM, than there is no errata.

TL:DR -- if the GM can't produce a copy of the product with the errata, then there is no errata, and the player's...

That is a not a great idea, it would create a huge amount of table variation, and punish those with GMs who keep up to date...

In many instances, changes like this don't just affect a number or two, they change builds to a significant extent.

Old version of books would rise in price and all the gamers with more discretionary income would just buy the old books and hope that they don't get caught.

Players and GMs are supposed to follow clarifications by campaign leadership and your suggestion really causes the opposite.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

Harold Ervin wrote:

Nerfing Lore Warden was not needed. I purchased the appropriate source. It was vetted at that time (or more likely two months later). I should be able to continue to use it to build new characters. The fact that someone wasted word-count in a new product in an unneeded nerf is galling. Who is the author for that fleabag anyway?

Harold Ervin wrote:

With a new product line (Starfinder) and only one new hire (Thursty), thus inevitably PFS must be even more talent-diluted....

Comments like this are very much uncalled for.

[shaventalz]

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Harold Ervin wrote:

With a new product line (Starfinder) and only one new hire (Thursty), thus inevitably PFS must be even more talent-diluted....

Comments like this are very much uncalled for.

If they have hired only one new person, though, it's true. Unless they had exactly ONE person working on Pathfinder, this makes twice the systems to work on with less than twice the help.

[pauljathome]

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Harold Ervin wrote:

With a new product line (Starfinder) and only one new hire (Thursty), thus inevitably PFS must be even more talent-diluted....

Comments like this are very much uncalled for.

Uh, why? It is pretty much a self evident fact that Starfinder is consuming more employee time than just one new hire and so there is less time to spend on other work.

And its pretty much a self evident fact that Pathfinder as a whole has less employee time being spent on it than it could usefully absorb.

Neither statement is remotely an insult. They're just statement of facts. As a profit making business Paizo has less employee time than everybody (including Paizo) would like it to have and it therefore can't do everything that everybody (including Paizo) would like it to do.

[captain yesterday]

The Adventurers Guide (and most likely the upcoming hardcover book of the damned) is a great example of that.

Would it have so much reprinted material if there was no Starfinder.

We'll never know.

[Thurston Hillman]

Harold Ervin wrote:

With a new product line (Starfinder) and only one new hire (Thursty), thus inevitably PFS must be even more talent-diluted....

Addressing this now, before anyone makes any further assumptions on the matter...

Yes, I was hired to help handle development on Starfinder Society. I'm currently doing that right now (ouuuuu, these scenarios are shiny). That being said, I've been more and more involved on the Pathfinder Society side of things to help further my skills for Starfinder Society, and to help the OP Team (John, Linda, Tonya, and Mark S.) out. Even before the official announcement of my position, I'd been involved in developing Pathfinder Society scenarios, along with some other external freelancers. So please don't misinterpret my presence as just being something to drain Pathfinder Society resources.

Obviously, like any new hire situation, there's training and assistance required from existing staff. John and Linda have been exceptionally gracious in offering me their time when I have questions about how certain development processes should work. There's been lots of calls from the community in recent times to amp up the Org Play team to keep up with growing Pathfinder Society demand. Clearly, my hiring is Paizo listening to that demand.

Stating that my presence, as a result of Starfinder Society, is 'diluting' the talent on the team is particularly narrow way of looking at things. The goal here, is to increase the size of the team and bring in new talent, so the team can take on more. This occurs in any business, and as someone who's been involved in a lot of company roles, I can say that there's almost never a good time to bring on new staff without temporarily increasing the load on others.

So, I'm sorry that you view my presence as taking away from PFS. What I can say, is that the goal is entirely the opposite.

[Davor Firetusk]

Given the volume of material out there, and a commitment to not start over with a new edition. Reprinting, updating and adjusting some rules is the only rational course of action. A failure to address any inevitable poor design decisions over the years will eventually lead to a system collapse (I hold this truth to be self evident if you understand evolutionary theory, computer programming, why Utopias never work, or engineering).

More specifically as a wealth of newer classes,feats, and archetypes has become available things thrown together with only Core or maybe Core + APG are going to look strange and in some cases problematic. One could interpret this only as they are low on manpower and taking the easy way out, but I've said for over a year that there's so much out there in terms of rules that a slow down in new crunch would be perfectly reasonable. Making old stuff fit better is a pretty reasonable approach to some of that space. On the other hand returning to Utopia's and engineering, any changes they do make will inevitably have unexpected consequences, doing so at a measured pace helps to mitigate that hopefully. It does however leave them open to charges of why are you 'fixing' this when that is clearly more broken (broken is also somewhat relative and depends heavily on play style).

With John basically saying for PFS purposes you get a lifetime license with an older version of anything updated, it really undercuts much economic complaining (which is important to balance).

And the poster who was ranting about the Retail Incentive Program? What that's all run locally if your organizers aren't saying anything that this is an option then that has nothing really to do with design

[Rogar Valertis]

As many others I admit I'm puzzled by the choice of nerfing Lore Warden of all things. Sure it can be an effective archetype at some niche game mechanics (i.e. maneuvers) but after experiencing a game with a dazing spellcaster literally one shotting a couple of high level encounters I'm seriously convinced PFS nerfs tend to hit stuff that doesn't really need it while other much more nerf worthy stuff is for some reason left untouched.

That said I'd like to ask again about Combat Stamina and the Stamina rules: when Unchained was released we were told they were considering allowing the rules and feats or a version of them for PFS. To my knowledge the notion never surfaced again. Is there any way to get an update on this?

[shaventalz]

Thurston Hillman wrote:

Stating that my presence, as a result of Starfinder Society, is 'diluting' the talent on the team is particularly narrow way of looking at things. The goal here, is to increase the size of the team and bring in new talent, so the team can take on more. This occurs in any business, and as someone who's been involved in a lot of company roles, I can say that there's almost never a good time to bring on new staff without temporarily increasing the load on others.

So, I'm sorry that you view my presence as taking away from PFS. What I can say, is that the goal is entirely the opposite.

If it helps, I don't see you as taking away from PFS. I see Starfinder as taking away from PFS, and your presence as an attempt to mitigate that.

[Ragoz]

Davor Firetusk wrote:

With John basically saying for PFS purposes you get a lifetime license with an older version of anything updated, it really undercuts much economic complaining (which is important to balance).

Just to be clear he didn't say this at all. He said for Adventure's Guide, when it becomes available on the PRD, you can use the PRD as a resource if you owned the old source.

This isn't retroactive for anything else and doesn't apply to any other source in the future without it being specifically called out.

[TimD]

Thurston Hillman wrote:

Harold Ervin wrote:

With a new product line (Starfinder) and only one new hire (Thursty), thus inevitably PFS must be even more talent-diluted....

So, I'm sorry that you view my presence as taking away from PFS. What I can say, is that the goal is entirely the opposite.

I don't think he meant that at all.

It was a statement that there seems to be much more work at Paizo and especially in its now 3 (3 1/2?) forms of organized play than one hire - even one with your reported drinking capacity will be able to offset.

There is now PFS Standard, PFS Core, PFS Adventure Card Game, and now Starfinder Society. Paizo & VO resources already seemed strained before your hire and adding one person for a whole new product line (no matter how talented) seems underwhelming.

As critical as even I've been about many of the Paizo and even PFS decisions in the past, I think the PFS team does the best job that anyone could given the juggle they have between the needs of the campaign, the tumult of the VO boards, the clamor of the players, and the sibilant whispers of the Secret Masters other Paizo staff to whom they report.

[shaventalz]

Ragoz wrote:

Davor Firetusk wrote:

With John basically saying for PFS purposes you get a lifetime license with an older version of anything updated, it really undercuts much economic complaining (which is important to balance).

Just to be clear he didn't say this at all. He said for Adventure's Guide, when it becomes available on the PRD, you can use the PRD as a resource if you owned the old source.

This isn't retroactive for anything else and doesn't apply to any other source in the future without it being specifically called out.

Actually, he didn't even say that. He said that would be the case if grandfathering wasn't allowed.

John Compton wrote:

I gather there's some confusion and concern about legal versions of resources.

Should the Additional Resources for Adventurer's Guide require using the more recent version of a legal character option, having any version of that resource will be sufficient for Additional Resources purposes. You don't need to buy a new book to use an option you already had.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

*Potentially offensive pop-culture reference removed due to political content*

That would actually be *worth* something, Rogar.

So why *can't* fighters get Combat Stamina and the Stamina rules for PFS?

Please don't give the 'martials can't have nice things' argument.

Yay or nay, why not?

The USummoner is the only one valid now(barring grandfathering), so the argument that the book is necessary for play has kinda gained strength?

[Ragoz]

shaventalz wrote:

Ragoz wrote:

Davor Firetusk wrote:

With John basically saying for PFS purposes you get a lifetime license with an older version of anything updated, it really undercuts much economic complaining (which is important to balance).

Just to be clear he didn't say this at all. He said for Adventure's Guide, when it becomes available on the PRD, you can use the PRD as a resource if you owned the old source.

This isn't retroactive for anything else and doesn't apply to any other source in the future without it being specifically called out.

Actually, he didn't even say that. He said that would be the case if grandfathering wasn't allowed.

John Compton wrote:

I gather there's some confusion and concern about legal versions of resources.

Should the Additional Resources for Adventurer's Guide require using the more recent version of a legal character option, having any version of that resource will be sufficient for Additional Resources purposes. You don't need to buy a new book to use an option you already had.

Yeah you are right it was conditional. If it does happen you also can't play your character until available on PRD obviously.

[pH unbalanced]

captain yesterday wrote:

The Adventurers Guide (and most likely the upcoming hardcover book of the damned) is a great example of that.

Would it have so much reprinted material if there was no Starfinder.

We'll never know.

I want to stand up for the Adventurer's Guide here.

First of all, despite what most people say about it, by word count, only about a third of the material was reprints. And the stuff that *was* reprinted was out of print. As someone who only reads physical product, I *greatly*'appreciate that. (If I buy a PDF, it is only for PFS purposes; I find trying to actually read them physically uncomfortable.

Personally, I want Paizo to make more books like the Adventurer's Guide. It's an awesome book.

I don't blame people for complaining about "nerfs", but can we please not throw the baby out with the bath water. The Guide itself is not the problem.

[Kerney]

captain yesterday wrote:

The Adventurers Guide (and most likely the upcoming hardcover book of the damned) is a great example of that.

Would it have so much reprinted material if there was no Starfinder.

We'll never know.

If I finish my cross time transporter, we will be able to murder hobo alternative realities for resources AND answer this question.

And I want a Columbian Mammoth herd.

[Dustin Knight]

I am still kind of shocked over the lore warden change. I've never actually seen any fighters at any of my tables that weren't lore wardens. The archetype gave fighters a way to get past a very high feat prerequisite that still isn't enough to make certain types of combat maneuver focused characters more niche use one trick ponies that aren't better than a warrior in many encounters.

I'm still surprised by the lack of a trait that bypasses the combat expertise prerequisite on a single improved feat. Even if we took out grapple.

But the lore warden still wasn't the best class for any given combat maneuver. Most of the time it was a caster, like the white-haired witch for grapple or a hydrokineticist for bull-rush. And for versatile maneuvers it'll be brawler.

For the record I love Adventurers Guide and even the clear spindle. I don't like it as much as paths of the righteous but not because of reprints.

[captain yesterday]

pH unbalanced wrote:

captain yesterday wrote:

The Adventurers Guide (and most likely the upcoming hardcover book of the damned) is a great example of that.

Would it have so much reprinted material if there was no Starfinder.

We'll never know.

I want to stand up for the Adventurer's Guide here.

First of all, despite what most people say about it, by word count, only about a third of the material was reprints. And the stuff that *was* reprinted was out of print. As someone who only reads physical product, I *greatly*'appreciate that. (If I buy a PDF, it is only for PFS purposes; I find trying to actually read them physically uncomfortable.

Personally, I want Paizo to make more books like the Adventurer's Guide. It's an awesome book.

I don't blame people for complaining about "nerfs", but can we please not throw the baby out with the bath water. The Guide itself is not the problem.

For me it's about the amount of reprinting. I won't even buy anything from the campaign setting or player companion lines anymore because they'll just reprint in a hardcover book (with some PFS play testing) with slight adjustments in six to eight months.

Personally, I don't want to see another Adventurers Guide. Ymmv.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

If only things could be 'backwards compatible'...

EDIT: ie, if reprints weren't 'stealthrrata'

[Nefreet]

Wait, what happened to Tribal Scars?

(in case you can't tell, I haven't, and probably won't, be buying this book)

[Damanta]

Nefreet wrote:

Wait, what happened to Tribal Scars?

(in case you can't tell, I haven't, and probably won't, be buying this book)

Lost the 6 bonus hitpoints, and needs affiliation with Mammoth Lords instead of being part of a Mammoth Lord following.

Edit: in other words, instead of it being a human (kellid) only feat, it got turned into a free for all, and thus lost it's 6 hit points bonus.

[Chess Pwn]

Thurston Hillman wrote:

Stating that my presence, as a result of Starfinder Society, is 'diluting' the talent on the team is particularly narrow way of looking at things. The goal here, is to increase the size of the team and bring in new talent, so the team can take on more.

I believe his point was that the team now has double(or more) the workload as it did before, but only 1 extra person to help. Meaning there'll be less time to work on something since you need to make 2 things in the time it took 1. Thus you can't make it as good, or "dilute the talent" available to the book.

If they had hired a full team of 3 to match the 3 they had before I don't think he'd have commented, sure it takes time to train, but after a bit you have 2 groups doing their own thing than having 1 slightly larger group doing 2 things.

[GM Lamplighter]

Remember Season 2, where one scenario has you in an epic battle with a CR15 creature? There's a whole specialized system written in to allow you to survive that, and in fact even "win". Epic, but it assumed that there was no way a party could survive without a whole special system.

The spiritual successor to that scenario came out recently. I just read an after-action report (from one of the better GMs I've seen in action), where a 7th-level PC killed the CR15 "unbeatable" monster. KILLED it. In melee combat.

If you think the player options don't need adjustment downwards from time to time, I encourage you to GM a few games with players who have as much system mastery as you do. Keep track of how long the combats go and if you even manage to damage any PCs using the APL-appropriate monsters.

[Chess Pwn]

GM Lamplighter wrote:

Remember Season 2, where one scenario has you in an epic battle with a CR15 creature? There's a whole specialized system written in to allow you to survive that, and in fact even "win". Epic, but it assumed that there was no way a party could survive without a whole special system.

The spiritual successor to that scenario came out recently. I just read an after-action report (from one of the better GMs I've seen in action), where a 7th-level PC killed the CR15 "unbeatable" monster. KILLED it. In melee combat.

If you think the player options don't need adjustment downwards from time to time, I encourage you to GM a few games with players who have as much system mastery as you do. Keep track of how long the combats go and if you even manage to damage any PCs using the APL-appropriate monsters.

I know that I personally will make murder beasts, but that's because at my local lodge I'm having to compensate for the team. Last night was a 7-11, and it seemed a fairly non-deadly one. But since we had a lv9 brawler with +6 fort save, 18 AC, and like 50 HP he dropped as he encountered some con poison and then got mauled by an enemy. And since a lot of characters here are at similar optimization, a murder beast feels needed to make sure my character can get through alive and hopefully have most the party still alive too.

Party hits so low under the goal, that I feel like overshooting the goal to make up for it. If everyone basically built to be competent I wouldn't feel the need to be over the top.

[Ragoz]

Archery and Spirited Charge are core. Just because you can kill things with new material doesn't mean it is better than these options. I think the argument for stuff being overpowered is pretty ridiculous when you compare it to all the static bonuses core rulebook has.

[shaventalz]

GM Lamplighter wrote:

Remember Season 2, where one scenario has you in an epic battle with a CR15 creature? There's a whole specialized system written in to allow you to survive that, and in fact even "win". Epic, but it assumed that there was no way a party could survive without a whole special system.

The spiritual successor to that scenario came out recently. I just read an after-action report (from one of the better GMs I've seen in action), where a 7th-level PC killed the CR15 "unbeatable" monster. KILLED it. In melee combat.

If you think the player options don't need adjustment downwards from time to time, I encourage you to GM a few games with players who have as much system mastery as you do. Keep track of how long the combats go and if you even manage to damage any PCs using the APL-appropriate monsters.

If you're talking about the scenario I think you're talking about, there's still a subsystem in place. "Adjustments" made to limit the monster in question. Equipment provided that was specifically designed around killing said monster.

It's not "oh, a level 7 killed the CR15". It's more like "the party killed the high-CR creature thanks to a combination of Power Attack, good equipment, and skill."

[Tallow]

KitsuneWarlock wrote:

I've never actually seen any fighters at any of my tables that weren't lore wardens.

This is exactly why the change was made. It had become too ubiquitous.

[Tallow]

Ragoz wrote:

shaventalz wrote:

Ragoz wrote:

Davor Firetusk wrote:

With John basically saying for PFS purposes you get a lifetime license with an older version of anything updated, it really undercuts much economic complaining (which is important to balance).

Just to be clear he didn't say this at all. He said for Adventure's Guide, when it becomes available on the PRD, you can use the PRD as a resource if you owned the old source.

This isn't retroactive for anything else and doesn't apply to any other source in the future without it being specifically called out.

Actually, he didn't even say that. He said that would be the case if grandfathering wasn't allowed.

John Compton wrote:

I gather there's some confusion and concern about legal versions of resources.

Should the Additional Resources for Adventurer's Guide require using the more recent version of a legal character option, having any version of that resource will be sufficient for Additional Resources purposes. You don't need to buy a new book to use an option you already had.

Yeah you are right it was conditional. If it does happen you also can't play your character until available on PRD obviously.

Well to my follow-up question that essentially asked this, John did say that this would be taken into account when AR decisions are made.

John has proven time, and again, that he is exceedingly fair and reasonable. So I trust that whatever decision he and the team make, it will likely be very friendly to those who are using old material and don't want to purchase a new book.

[Tallow]

Thomas Hutchins wrote:

Thurston Hillman wrote:

Stating that my presence, as a result of Starfinder Society, is 'diluting' the talent on the team is particularly narrow way of looking at things. The goal here, is to increase the size of the team and bring in new talent, so the team can take on more.

I believe his point was that the team now has double(or more) the workload as it did before, but only 1 extra person to help. Meaning there'll be less time to work on something since you need to make 2 things in the time it took 1. Thus you can't make it as good, or "dilute the talent" available to the book.

If they had hired a full team of 3 to match the 3 they had before I don't think he'd have commented, sure it takes time to train, but after a bit you have 2 groups doing their own thing than having 1 slightly larger group doing 2 things.

Except it isn't "double" the workload.

Starfinder Society is only 1 scenario a month as opposed to 2. Which means its only 50% more workload. Two developers handled all the PFS work, and you add 50% more, so a 3rd developer was hired. Seems about right to me.

[nosig]

Tallow wrote:

KitsuneWarlock wrote:

I've never actually seen any fighters at any of my tables that weren't lore wardens.

This is exactly why the change was made. It had become too ubiquitous.

I think this is kind of regional. I think I have actually only ever been in one game with a Lore Warden, and have never (that I recall) had one at a table I have run. But then I've only run 160 or so games....

[Tallow]

TimD wrote:

There is now PFS Standard, PFS Core, PFS Adventure Card Game, and now Starfinder Society. Paizo & VO resources already seemed strained before your hire and adding one person for a whole new product line (no matter how talented) seems underwhelming.

PFS Core does not require extra development or writing resources.

We are talking about Starfinder Society, Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild and Pathfinder Society Adventure Card Guild. That's a total of 3.

And to be honest, I'm not sure where the resources PFS wise are going into the ACG. I was under the impression the ACG stuff had a completely different team. But maybe that changed when Tanis left.

[Hmm]

Tallow wrote:

KitsuneWarlock wrote:

I've never actually seen any fighters at any of my tables that weren't lore wardens.

This is exactly why the change was made. It had become too ubiquitous.

My theory is that the real reason why the Lore Warden is so popular was the skill points. Playing a full fighter in PFS is just too painful with 2+Int/Level. Now people will just go off and dip with brawlers and bloodragers instead.

The Lore Warden was an excellent fit for PFS play, and that should be no surprise since it's a Pathfinder Society Archetype. It wasn't the best fighter archetype... but its skill points made it the best fit for PFS.

Hmm

[Kalindlara]

Damanta wrote:

Lost the 6 bonus hitpoints, and needs affiliation with Mammoth Lords instead of being part of a Mammoth Lord following.

Edit: in other words, instead of it being a human (kellid) only feat, it got turned into a free for all, and thus lost it's 6 hit points bonus.

In fairness, I'd never seen the original treated as human-only. It was mostly a game of "give a loose justification of how your oread/Chelaxian/eidolon/mermaid qualifies as part of a Mammoth Lords following". No less of a free-for-all.

[Tallow]

nosig wrote:

Tallow wrote:

KitsuneWarlock wrote:

I've never actually seen any fighters at any of my tables that weren't lore wardens.

This is exactly why the change was made. It had become too ubiquitous.

I think this is kind of regional. I think I have actually only ever been in one game with a Lore Warden, and have never (that I recall) had one at a table I have run. But then I've only run 160 or so games....

That could be. I obviously don't know the counts of all players everywhere who've ever created and played a fighter.

I know that my characters that have fighter levels, none are Lore Warden. I think I Have 3 out of my 38 characters. Only one of which was not a fighter dip for some extra feats but rather a rogue dip.

[Amon Cull]

shaventalz wrote:

Amon Cull wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

Kevin Willis wrote:

Every Lore Warden I have seen was a 2-3 level dip combined with Monk (old days) or Brawler (since ACG).

I only dipped one level of Lore Warden so I could go into Eldritch Knight. The extra skill points and "All Int skills are Class Skills" appealed to me, and the Character described himself as a "Warden of Lore".

I had no clue that Lore Warden was big on maneuvers until this thread.

I did the same, but for different reasons. I needed medium armor proficiency for my Hellknight Signifer, and didn't want to lose skills. Of course, if it becomes legal I will change it to Armiger, as I am only level 1 anyhow.

I hate to tell you... but OldLoreWarden gives up proficiency with medium/heavy armor and shields for those two skill points.

Yes, but it gave me weapon proficiencies and saved me one feat. Also, it was fitting for the story, as he grew up in a Chellish military academy but was more interested in knowledge and magic.

[TriOmegaZero]

shaventalz wrote:

It's not "oh, a level 7 killed the CR15". It's more like "the party killed the high-CR creature thanks to a combination of Power Attack, good equipment, and skill."

None of the equipment provided in the module has any use against the creature. It was killed by a full attacking eidolon and a x3 crit from a barbarian.

Yes, luck of the dice played a part. But it is still a testament to how powerful Pathfinder characters are. This is not the first time I have seen a party take out an enemy whose CR was twice the APL.

[Tallow]

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

Tallow wrote:

KitsuneWarlock wrote:

I've never actually seen any fighters at any of my tables that weren't lore wardens.

This is exactly why the change was made. It had become too ubiquitous.

My theory is that the real reason why the Lore Warden is so popular was the skill points. Playing a full fighter in PFS is just too painful with 2+Int/Level. Now people will just go off and dip with brawlers and bloodragers instead.

The Lore Warden was an excellent fit for PFS play, so it should be no surprise since it's a Pathfinder Society Archetype. It wasn't the best fighter archetype... but it's skill points made it the best fit for PFS.

Hmm

This is partially the case, in my opinion. It actually was better than a fighter in almost every way except for armor proficiency. Archetypes shouldn't do that.

Vendel Naughton is largely a full fighter except for his 3 rogue levels. I've not found the lack of skillpoints all that painful. Because that isn't his role. I largely enjoy creating characters with skills if not a full-on skill monkey. But I really enjoy playing Vendel too. Its more a matter of taste than necessity to have all the skills.

[supervillan]

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

Tallow wrote:

KitsuneWarlock wrote:

I've never actually seen any fighters at any of my tables that weren't lore wardens.

This is exactly why the change was made. It had become too ubiquitous.

My theory is that the real reason why the Lore Warden is so popular was the skill points. Playing a full fighter in PFS is just too painful with 2+Int/Level. Now people will just go off and dip with brawlers and bloodragers instead.

The Lore Warden was an excellent fit for PFS play, and that should be no surprise since it's a Pathfinder Society Archetype. It wasn't the best fighter archetype... but it's skill points made it the best fit for PFS.

Hmm

Yup. You get as much, if not more, from a 2 level dip in Brawler as you would from a 2 level dip in Lore Warden.

Lore Warden isn't ubiquitous. I've been playing PFS for 3.5 years, in multiple countries and online, and I can't recall being at a table with one.

[Kalindlara]

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

My theory is that the real reason why the Lore Warden is so popular was the skill points. Playing a full fighter in PFS is just too painful with 2+Int/Level. Now people will just go off and dip with brawlers and bloodragers instead.

The Lore Warden was an excellent fit for PFS play, and that should be no surprise since it's a Pathfinder Society Archetype. It wasn't the best fighter archetype... but its skill points made it the best fit for PFS.

Hmm

I'm pretty sure it didn't lose any of that. Just a couple of class skills around the edges.

[Tallow]

supervillan wrote:

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

Tallow wrote:

KitsuneWarlock wrote:

I've never actually seen any fighters at any of my tables that weren't lore wardens.

This is exactly why the change was made. It had become too ubiquitous.

My theory is that the real reason why the Lore Warden is so popular was the skill points. Playing a full fighter in PFS is just too painful with 2+Int/Level. Now people will just go off and dip with brawlers and bloodragers instead.

The Lore Warden was an excellent fit for PFS play, and that should be no surprise since it's a Pathfinder Society Archetype. It wasn't the best fighter archetype... but it's skill points made it the best fit for PFS.

Hmm

Yup. You get as much, if not more, from a 2 level dip in Brawler as you would from a 2 level dip in Lore Warden.

Lore Warden isn't ubiquitous. I've been playing PFS for 3.5 years, in multiple countries and online, and I can't recall being at a table with one.

Except the power of lore warden was when you dip it with a Monk or Brawler to make great grapplers even more gross.

[supervillan]

Tallow wrote:

supervillan wrote:

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

Tallow wrote:

KitsuneWarlock wrote:

I've never actually seen any fighters at any of my tables that weren't lore wardens.

This is exactly why the change was made. It had become too ubiquitous.

My theory is that the real reason why the Lore Warden is so popular was the skill points. Playing a full fighter in PFS is just too painful with 2+Int/Level. Now people will just go off and dip with brawlers and bloodragers instead.

The Lore Warden was an excellent fit for PFS play, and that should be no surprise since it's a Pathfinder Society Archetype. It wasn't the best fighter archetype... but it's skill points made it the best fit for PFS.

Hmm

Yup. You get as much, if not more, from a 2 level dip in Brawler as you would from a 2 level dip in Lore Warden.

Lore Warden isn't ubiquitous. I've been playing PFS for 3.5 years, in multiple countries and online, and I can't recall being at a table with one.

Except the power of lore warden was when you dip it with a Monk or Brawler to make great grapplers even more gross.

How many of these "gross grapplers" are out there? I haven't seen any. Would they be better than straight Tetori? Should we also nerf the blood-conduit bloodrager? I mean it can deliver spells whilst grappling.

[Tallow]

supervillan wrote:

Tallow wrote:

supervillan wrote:

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

Tallow wrote:

KitsuneWarlock wrote:

I've never actually seen any fighters at any of my tables that weren't lore wardens.

This is exactly why the change was made. It had become too ubiquitous.

My theory is that the real reason why the Lore Warden is so popular was the skill points. Playing a full fighter in PFS is just too painful with 2+Int/Level. Now people will just go off and dip with brawlers and bloodragers instead.

The Lore Warden was an excellent fit for PFS play, and that should be no surprise since it's a Pathfinder Society Archetype. It wasn't the best fighter archetype... but it's skill points made it the best fit for PFS.

Hmm

Yup. You get as much, if not more, from a 2 level dip in Brawler as you would from a 2 level dip in Lore Warden.

Lore Warden isn't ubiquitous. I've been playing PFS for 3.5 years, in multiple countries and online, and I can't recall being at a table with one.

Except the power of lore warden was when you dip it with a Monk or Brawler to make great grapplers even more gross.

How many of these "gross grapplers" are out there? I haven't seen any. Would they be better than straight Tetori? Should we also nerf the blood-conduit bloodrager? I mean it can deliver spells whilst grappling.

Lore Warden/Tetori is most likely better than a straight Tetori.