Search Posts
I'm not going to make a value judgement, but I personally don't think there is an OP problem with the extra DR power stacking with invulnerable like it does for the DR class ability. Like anything else, it's subject to misuse by an over-eager player. There are many other class features much more "broken" than this one so not sure why a stand needed to be taken in this particular case. It is what it is. I'm just wondering what I need to do with my now illegal PC. The simplest thing to do is a free retrain on the rage power, but I'm sure some will argue that their entire character concept is based on stacking DR and want a full rebuild. My personal view is this: We all play this game to have fun, right? So if something changes, no matter how big or small it might be, that change can drastically impact the satisfaction of a particular build for someone. Allowing the changed article to be replaced is all well and good, but if the end result is no longer satisfying to that particular player, I firmly believe that is a perfectly valid feeling to have following a character change. We've had enough character changes of late (last 2 years in particular) that considering broader rebuild options for folks should be something that is on the table for discussion. In my personal opinion, a full rebuild should have been given already.
The rebuilds would hardly be for one single change. In the last year and a half, we have had several pages of changed material, from feats to magic items.
Online game patches tend to buff options as well to bring them up to par. Erratas have been significantly in favor of only making the options worse. Any well-known character option can probably expect a nerf at this point. See, for me, the issue is this. A lot of the recent and semi recent nerfs have been frustrating. But I can absolutely live with them. What is intensely frustrating, in our shared PFS sense, is not being able to properly account for this high volume of changes by just being given full rebuilds. Some folks are against that because they just dislike rebuilds. Some are against it because of book keeping. Some because it can lead to some PCs becoming much stronger or very different. My response to all of this is the same: so? Isn't the reason we play this game to have as much fun as possible? Documentation for a full rebuild is as easy as one additional sheet of paper that says: Race changed from x to x.
GM signed here.
Rein it in, please. This is a forum for discussion, not a place for insults. While the tone was not helpful, I find I generally agree with his bafflement at what is permitted/nerfed/changed vs. not. Crane Wing? Waylayer Rogue? Too good, let's just go ahead and make that first one very subpar, and ban the second one. But Sacred Geometry? Pistolero Gunslinger? Perfectly balanced! No need to change those at all. . . (One developer example and one PFS specific example done on purpose.)
Hilarious Rant Welcome to our world, of the occasional incredibly frustrating AR change or nerf. Please enjoy your stay! ;) I personally can live with the changes and nerfs themselves. It's the lack of rebuilding to my satisfaction that is the truly frustrating point. I understand logging such rebuilds can be a hassle, and sympathize. Better that hassle than the damage to my/our fun factor though is my perspective.
Thanks Jeffrey, that was very eloquently stated, and put my personal feelings into words better than I could have.
So for those who believe it is overpowered in general use, I ask one question: As compared to what? That is really the crux of the issue for me. What is our universal scale for measuring if something is overpowered or not? Of the many things I personally find to be overpowered, blood money is not high on that list until we are at extreme levels of play. Even then, for PFS, it's far less of an issue since a free wish will have no lingering effects from scenario to scenario. Does it really matter if I did the cool free wish to win, vs. slinging a dazing persistent hungry darkness? Specifically to animate dead, the spell is not bad...the issue for me is just that the minion created is nothing to write home about compared to the way most people I have played with build their PCs. So your necromancer can raise those minions just for the cost of a spell slot? That's fine with me. It's basically just a re-flavored summoned monster at that point, who lasts longer, but loses useful spell-like abilities. Steve's melee PC is still far better at everything fighting related than either of them, so who cares?
You're glossing over the, say, four spell slots, a scroll, and devotion to the Living God Razmir necessary to accomplish this feat, andreww. Or perhaps the Shaman Spirit choice, hex choice, and INT/CHA/WIS ability score spread. Or the Oracle archetype, race restriction, and spell level increases... etc. etc.None of that is necessary. Wands of Blood Money are 2pp and you only need to reach DC20 UMD which gives you extensive additional benefits. That one is also harder to pull off, since the wand casting is a standard action, typically requiring the follow up spell to be Quickened. Free Animate Dead is pretty legit, though. Really, free is the only thing that makes the option even worth considering in my mind, but that is just me.
I agree. I wouldn't give up the level either, but it's hardly the only option. I use Magaambyan Arcanist myself. The point was just that there are ways to do it that are quite easy to achieve. In further point, using blood money to cast Stoneskin (or insert other general use here), then using blood money to cast lesser restoration is hardly game destroying.
Outside of high level play with simulacrum, wish, ect. level of blood money shenanigans, I have never witnessed it prove a more unbalancing problem than a plethora of other still currently legal options. Most of the low and mid range level of spells which blood money was frequently used for are otherwise not worth the cost anyhow. Stoneskin? Why. You're a caster. Just buff your AC to 45.
I dig the logic on that style chain. I also appreciate you taking the time to explain that to us. If you'd be willing to indulge us a little further, is there any behind the scenes insight you're willing to offer on why some seemingly less controversial stuff such as Aldori Caution (Weapon Master's Handbook), Waylayer Rogue (Dirty Tactics Toolbox), or Cudgeler Style chain (Melee Tactics Toolbox) are banned?
Yeah, I have not been very pleased with the direction I have seen the AR going of late. Some of the cool defensive stuff (aldori caution), monk stuff (ascetic style), and rogue stuff (waylayer archetype) just isn't making it in, to point out just a few. Just not seeing the need to limit those, and other, options.
Its a lot more common in newer content too but typically that is by design. In terms of scenario content, my core group has been on a bit of non-PFS binge the last several months, so I haven't yet played any season 6 or 7 stuff. So I can't rightly comment there. In terms of character building, it's just very easy to build incredibly strong PCs that can walk all over the median difficulty assumed by the CR system. You don't have to do that, of course, but it is a thing that will happen. For me personally, character building and coming up with crazy stuff is almost as fun as actually playing. To each their own, though. Edit: And just because your PC can stomp all over a scenario doesn't mean you have to, obviously.
This is especially true of the older content. It's not difficult to build incredibly efficient characters if you have a strong knowledge of the game system.
Anyone else as disappointed as me to see the "wrongbad fun" mentality alive and well? My experiences have shown that a player can run a very powerful PC without being the least bit disruptive to the table. Builds aren't a problem. Player decisions can be.
A few things coming up in this thread and the related ones that I believe should be addressed. First, yes, the errata was pretty broad sweeping, and affects a lot of builds. That sucks for those affected. Whether or not the campaign leadership decides to allow very broad rebuilding or not, I personally do not see it as punishment. I look at it like this: If they allow very broad rebuilds, then they are being exceptionally understanding about exactly how the changes affect certain builds, and how those changed builds can affect an individual's fun (particular for those of us who are character builders). If they do not take that into consideration, I do not see it as punishment, I simply see it as not being terribly sympathetic. Second, the demonization some individuals are demonstrating towards those asking for that sympathy and understanding seems incredibly out of hand. I get that not everyone enjoys this game the same way. That's perfectly fine. But to suggest that the character builder's enjoyment is in some way invalid or wrong is just ridiculous. At what point did we move away from being a fun, lighthearted game and organization to numerous voices hellbent on making this experience more rigid than an IRS tax code? The lack of empathy and sympathy from some of the posters, some of which are even high starred VO's, is incredibly saddening.
Let me preface my thoughts on the rebuild issue with this knowledge about me: I participate in PFS for fun, good memories, good times, and to indulge one of my favorite hobbies. In my opinion, adhering to a philosophy of paraphrased "sucks to be you, re-roll" does not serve anyone. (Not pointing to anyone specific there, but we do absolutely have community members with that mentality.) I am not in favor of full rebuilds every time we have errata or FAQ. This is for a number of reasons. First, it is potentially ripe for a somewhat constant abuse, as the game will always be evolving. Second, continued rebuilds can really make things hard for GMs to track if they wish to audit a PC. With that said, I do believe we have had enough high impact changes over the last few years to warrant giving people a one time full or semi-full rebuild. Race, class(es), archetypes, ability scores, feats, skills, and spells. Items only when they are invalidated by new choices or errata / FAQ. While this may lead to character improvements in some cases, that is not something I consider to be "abuse". I consider that to be "fun". It may also lead to some fairly significant changes, such as a Fighter PC becoming a Swashbuckler, or a Wizard becoming and Arcanist. But is that really a major problem?
I suppose, but in this case the cog was replaced by a similar cog with only a slightly-reduced effect. It's still a watch, it still keeps excellent time, it has just lost... well, it has lost its ability to be better than every other watch out there. I think this should be an easier mechanical change to still enjoy playing than some other ones we've seen. I would also argue that, in my personal opinion, a change to 3 effective levels vs. 10 effective levels is considerably more than a "slightly-reduced effect". Not implying that such a character would no longer be effective at all - just that it may no longer be what the player in question signed up for. I won't speak for anyone else here, but building characters is fully half of my fun in gaming. To folks like me, the mechanics, builds, and synergy are an essential part of our fun experience.
While not every PFS character is affected by the ACG and ARG erratas, the combined erratas were fairly broad in their reach. It might not be a terrible idea to offer a general one time ability score, class, archetype, and feat rebuild. Following that, the item rebuild rules can be applied for any affected pieces. This seems like the simplest solution possible vs. the often very specific and somewhat confusing current rebuild rules, and removes the need to grandfather anything.
I took a look. The iconic medium is not adding it on thrown damage, since it isn't being used as a melee weapon then. That seems right to me.Has it been pointed out that the medium is using a piercing weapon with Slashing Grace? In Pathfinder, daggers are type: P or S. So with the new ruling on the feat, it should work out.
What happened when combat started on the 54 seconds after they last activated? Or did combat always start on even minutes? In some cases, large portions of the dungeons would just go round to round as we basically buffed up at the entrance, and then swat teamed through sections of the place at a time. Combat rounds and movement speeds make that easy to track on a map. In instances where we paused for one reason or another to investigate something or talk a moment, we have a digital alert timer auto programmed to a minute. All you do is tap it to start, stop, reset.
...AND the waste of an entire round of full attacks. Which is one of the reasons my gunslinger doesn't do this. I think worse case scenario I had was spending around 350-400 GP on ammo in Bone Keep at 7th. Possibly, depending on play style, GM, and adventure in question. The two I played with for long periods cared nothing for the PP cost on the wand, so literally recast it every single minute in dungeon crawl scenarios (we play a lot of modules and APs). In scenarios that tactic is a bit harder since we don't always have a good guess when the conflict is coming.
I personally would not limit a gunslinger's ability to reload their weapon with free actions. That said, the fact that double-barrel firearms exist in the mechanical manner that they do in the first place is completely insane. Double my touch attacks per round by taking a -4 penalty to hit? Totally balanced!
When it comes to the necromancer's intentions, all we have is speculation. For all we know, the necromancer may have done it as a last resort desperation maneuver, as the OP did say one of the four PCs had died, and the party was getting pounded hard from there. Either way, when you examine that we are all people trying to have a cooperative fantasy experience for fun and entertainment, leaving a downed PC to die when you have the means to stop that is really pretty mean spirited. This is still a game last time I checked.
I clearly can't speak for anyone else, but we always found dealing with situations like these to be remarkably easy. Player of Inquisitor: "Hey Player of Necromancer! Because my PC is a very devout worshiper of Pharasma, assume that he is pretty constantly voicing his negative opinion of your undead raising and chastising your lack of observation to Pharasma's morals. Because I have no interest in harassing you as a Player though, just bear in mind that is taking place in the background. As we are both Pathfinders though, he cooperates with you." Player of Necromancer: "Hey man, np! Let's say that the Necromancer is not so forceful of his opinions on you, but replies coldly and with little care for your values on that particular topic. As we are both Pathfinders though, he cooperates with you." Everyone: Proceeds with the game without further incident. Now while that might not be 100% in line with required ethos, individual PC motivation, ect. it's just the easiest way to go without someone having a bad experience out of character. Any GM who seeks to enforce codes of ethics that would result in conflict between party members in the medium of PFS is just being ridiculous.
I'm shocked PCs of that level weren't rocking 30 points of extended resist energy all day as necessary.
You know, it really is ok to take intent into consideration when interpreting a rule. Real courts and judges do.
This is not to say that I disagree with either of you, I say this as food for thought. One man's "This is perfectly balanced." or "The intent of the rule is clearly A." interpretation is another man's "This is amazingly broken!" or "The intent of the rule is clearly B.".
While I would have been in favor of this interpretation from the start, reversing it now does make quite a mess. It may be thought of as a lack of foresight on behalf of the rules team, but everyone makes a not so good call once in a while. As far as rebuild or grandfathering, neither option is really ideal, but I do think grandfathering is the better of the two in this case. I also believe a cut off date that applies to all played (has at least one chronicle sheet as a PC, not GM credit) characters would be a better system than the one John discussed up thread. This would allow those who have a bit less opportunity to play a chance to achieve what they were aiming for, while eliminating GM blob abuse. My thoughts as a player and GM with one affected PC, who has to swap out Arcane Strike.
I find the core idea interesting. Not really my cup of tea since I enjoy a wide range of options for my optimization, but I won't object to having a character or two on standby to play with. You can still make extremely strong PCs with core only, the loss of options affects monks more than anything. Core would seem to do a fair job of addressing the reply issue and too much splat issue. Time will tell if it becomes popular or not, and I expect those results will very drastically from community to community.
Its unfortunate that your local community seems to have a prevailing attitude that you suggest Ohio has a lot of optimizers, and many of them have very strong system mastery. That aside though, I haven't run into the disregard for animal companions in-character like David suggests. There are out of character jokes about things like "It's ok, Fluffy the 3rd is right around the creek!", but I have yet to see the jokes reflected IC. But in his defense, David plays in a wider circle than I.
Well aware of those points. I was referring specifically to dazing magic missile. With that spell chosen as the carrier, it made me wonder if people were aware the target still got a save.
In my experience as a player, GM, store coordinator, and VO, when a Lodge finally has to remove a player who is actively trying to "break the game", everyone benefits. (Even the person booted, quite frankly - in both cases where we've done it here, they wind up finding a home game of like-minded individuals, and keep playing PFS, without having to deal with all of the newbies and less-adept players that come to a public game.) Literally a win-win (well, except for the guy who got the crappy job of telling them they were no longer welcome.) Out of curiosity, what were the two removed players doing to disrupt gameplay?
Players use gray areas all the time to build nearly unbeatable monstrosities and RAW is thrown in the GM's faces all the time that they have no choice but to deal with it. You're point is well taken. That said, I think you should keep in mind that the player's have a narrowly defined level spectrum from which to draw their resources. Sure, they may choose to employ gray areas or perfectly white areas that just stack together into ridiculous synergy or numbers, but they are always within the perimeter of that spectrum. A CR 12 foe making them fight a CR 20 (with antimagic no less) is well outside of it's level spectrum. Just something to consider.
I cant imagine a team that could take at lvl 11 a ac 33 beast with antimagic aura with 15 reach who can hit anywhere in the room by climbing on the walls. The antimagic is the real problem. Without it, that creature could easily be stomped by optimized lvl 11 characters. With it, it would still be possible to defeat, but we would be talking niche parties built to face such things. A group of big game hunter gunslingers or the like.
|
