|
But, until it is fixed, putting more pressure on the subsystem isn't particularly wise.
Depends.. it would be more pressure to fix it for organized play, which frankly has needed it for more than a decade.
The point wasn't that it wouldn't intersect permanency, but rather that it should not be a factor in deciding upon its proper inclusion. The counter point would be in banning the sunder combat maneuver as well as a list of oozes and other creatures that can destroy items.
An analogy: Picture an organization that conducts a strategic business analysis of itself. Out of this analysis, one of the things that comes up is that they don't do a very good job with safety. Let's also say that out of this analysis they see a couple of opportunities to expand business. One of them is a hazardous operation while another is not. Let's say they have the capitol to invest in one of those two ventures with similar financial expectations.
Certainly, they should look at programs to improve safety in various ways. However, their current weakness in safety favors the less hazardous business venture. There can certainly be other qualitative factors, but to fail to include the safety weakness in the decision would be imprudent.
You both have a point, the weakness in safety should be taken into account but choosing the safer option shouldn't be used as an excuse to not improve safety, and if the only way to improve safety is to improve the need for safety then that option should be considered.
Breaking away from the metaphor, if allowing permanecy either in whole or in part, encourages them to fix other problems, then that should indeed be considered as a reason to include it, perhaps including it with whatever update solves the other problem.
It woulddepend on how you view the bonuses to begin with.Read the CRB, its tells you what the bonuses are. Then you add them up.
Funky arithmetic that raises your BAB scores, well... not cool, really...
You know what's really not cool? 3/4 BAB prestiges actually take away BAB unless you time when you enter. Also, a character with 4 classes actually losing 3 BAB. Mind you many prestiges require a bit of multiclassing to enter...
Its not funky arithmetic, nor any sort of power gaming. Its actually required if you don't want to punch rogues, alchemist, inquisitors, or monks in the face when they multiclass or prestige. Unless you conveniently enter them at a good point, but if you enter at six from a 3/4 BAB class into a 3/4 BAB class your actually 3 BAB behind a full BAB class(6 at full bab, 3 BAB means he's as good at hitting things as a wizard, and if your a rogue you aren't exactly big on to hit bonuses in class).
Regardless, all of topic from permanency.
Its actually required if you don't want to punch rogues, alchemist, inquisitors, or monks in the face when they multiclass or prestige.Choices have consequences. The implications of multiclassing monks and rogues is there in black and white. No-one gets suprised by the numbers.
You can't just add bits on to your BAB because "reasons". Certainly not in PFS, that's cheating.
Yeah, everyone knows those classes are overpowered anyway, especially if you mix them.
I didn't say I did it in PFS. I do it at home because it only helps the characters that need it most. Mind you at home I have plenty of house rules, but to be fair, its a house.
|
|
There is a formula to those bonuses for one and two funky truncating math that makes one weaker then they should be is not cool either.Not in the CRB there isn't. There are just the values, you're inferring the formulae then using it to increase your BAB (hopefully not in PFS)...
Words are not perfect, i hate lawyers because they ignore the purpose of the laws and seek only how they can make the technicalities fit their desires, usually at the expense of undeserving people.
The results here may not be so important in rl, but you are still focusing so much on technicalities, that you are missing the purpose.
The written word is not a perfect expression of anything, you shouldn't treat it like divinity.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless of whether you think you know the intent or the formula, this is the PFS forum and we must follow the rules as written when playing PFS games. Fractional BAB, saves, and so on is not in the rules or mentioned even once, so you cannot use it for PFS play.
|
|
The fractional concept actually hurts saves for multiclassing since all classes start with at least one score at +2, and a monk get +2 to all three. Using fraction HD would reduce that. Call it the "balancing" aspect with regards to "loosing" BAB with untimely level dips.
I don't see how fractional will ever result in worse stats then non fractional. 2.5 + 2.5 is better then 2 + 2.
In 3.5 it was suggested to only apply the +2 for any good save only once per save but that has nothing to do with fractionals, but is the only thing i can think of that you might be referencing. If you are meaning something else please elaborate.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Admittedly, I'm probably confused on the math, but as this fractional concept is neither described, nor even hinted upon in Pathfinder, I guess I don't have to worry about it.
Multiclassing
Instead of gaining the abilities granted by the next level in your character’s current class, he can instead gain the 1st level abilities of a new class, adding all of those abilities to his existing ones. This is known as “multiclassing.”
For example, let’s say a 5th-level fighter decides to dabble in the arcane arts, and adds one level of wizard when he advances to 6th level. Such a character would have the powers and abilities of both a 5th-level fighter and a 1st-level wizard, but would still be considered a 6thlevel
character. (His class levels would be 5th and 1st, but his total character level is 6th.) He keeps all of his bonus feats gained from 5 levels of fighter, but can now also cast 1st-level spells and picks an arcane school. He adds all of the hit points, base attack bonuses, and saving throw bonuses from a 1st-level wizard on top of those gained
from being a 5th-level fighter*.
This is crystal clear on how to multiclass. You do not calculate your character level, separated by full/three-quarter/half/etc. advancement. You simply reference the applicable class table and apply what it says. In the example, the fighter-5/wizard-1 would have a BAB of +5. Could that mean the potential of a mid/high-level character with a BAB of +0? Yes, it does. Any other interpretation, no matter how reasonable/logical, is just not supported by the rules. So sorry, fractional advancement is not PFS legal.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a formula to those bonuses for one and two funky truncating math that makes one weaker then they should be is not cool either.
You know, the book may not specifically say you can't use fractional BAB, because the rules assume that there is no such thing.
The weaker BAB is on purpose. You are as weak as you should be in this case.
The weaker BAB is on purpose. You are as weak as you should be in this case.
What should be is a matter of opinion. I think an inquisitor/rogue or rogue 5/assassin 1 shouldn't lose a BAB to the mix. Multiclassing in this game is nasty as is.
While it might be nice to some to get the BAB, and opinions may vary as to what we should use apparently, the only important thing for RAW is that we don't use it. Which is what I thought I said when I first mentioned it. If we want to talk about it, PFS forum is probably not the place.
The way the game is written, is not a matter of opinion.
I don't think I said it was? I said the way it should have been is an opinion. I could bring up a lot of things, not sure if it would ever make a difference.
Regardless, isn't this a thread about permanency?
This thread is now about kittens.Regardless, isn't this a thread about permanency?
Well, in that case I would like to start us out by stating they are adorable. Do we have rules on obtaining one legally in PFS? Preferably permanently.
|
|
This thread is now about kittens.
Regardless, isn't this a thread about permanency?
Well, if it's about kittens: best kitten video ever
Well, in that case I would like to start us out by stating they are adorable. Do we have rules on obtaining one legally in PFS? Preferably permanently.This thread is now about kittens.Regardless, isn't this a thread about permanency?
Perhaps you could reskin a cat familiar.
|
|
Admittedly, I'm probably confused on the math, but as this fractional concept is neither described, nor even hinted upon in Pathfinder, I guess I don't have to worry about it.
Multiclassing
Instead of gaining the abilities granted by the next level in your character’s current class, he can instead gain the 1st level abilities of a new class, adding all of those abilities to his existing ones. This is known as “multiclassing.”
For example, let’s say a 5th-level fighter decides to dabble in the arcane arts, and adds one level of wizard when he advances to 6th level. Such a character would have the powers and abilities of both a 5th-level fighter and a 1st-level wizard, but would still be considered a 6thlevel
character. (His class levels would be 5th and 1st, but his total character level is 6th.) He keeps all of his bonus feats gained from 5 levels of fighter, but can now also cast 1st-level spells and picks an arcane school. He adds all of the hit points, base attack bonuses, and saving throw bonuses from a 1st-level wizard on top of those gained
from being a 5th-level fighter*.This is crystal clear on how to multiclass. You do not calculate your character level, separated by full/three-quarter/half/etc. advancement. You simply reference the applicable class table and apply what it says. In the example, the fighter-5/wizard-1 would have a BAB of +5. Could that mean the potential of a mid/high-level character with a BAB of +0? Yes, it does. Any other interpretation, no matter how reasonable/logical, is just not supported by the rules. So sorry, fractional advancement is not PFS legal.
It doesn't say anything about using tables either.
Considering that the has the various progressions spelled seperate from classes (in addition to with the classes) I think it is clear that those progressions define the upper and lower limits.
And while pfs needs to be particularly picky, in all other cases these rules are not intended to be absolute as the word of god. Therefore, discussion helps people figure out the difference between rai and raw, and discover potential differences in thinking as well as power balance.
I always used fractionals because I don't use stupid tables. When i had a computer i used excel and calculated bab and saves by putting the level in a class multiplied by the progression.
Did the same in my head, multiplied progression by level. Never occured to me to do it otherwise, because it is so clear that progressions are a fraction of total level.
|
|
Um, DarkLightHitomi, you do realize you are on a PFS board right?
Discussion of rules that do not apply to PFS, really aren't productive in a PFS forum.
If you want to discuss the shortcomings of non-fractional BAB and the pros of fractional BAB on the rules forums, have at it.
But doesn't really apply, make sense, or belong on the PFS boards.
It might just end up confusing some new person, and we want to avoid that.
|
|
It doesn't say anything about using tables either.
I'm sorry, but that is just intentionally ignoring what the rules are in order to create some ambiguity that just isn't there to justify your opinion on how things ought to be. As I have said, IMO from a conceptual perspective fractionals are an interesting idea that merits conversation. However, claiming that the rules (as intended) already permit or even suggest that fractionals are a player option is just not correct. After 5 years, and 26,000 events, this is the first time that fractionals have come up. I have to imagine they would be described more thoroughly, somewhere, anywhere, in Paizo material if they were even intended to be alternate/optional rules. The concept of fractional BAB/saves for Pathfinder Society Organized Play is not a legal option.
|
|
Without much thought I found references to fractional BAB in the bestiary. I'm not sure if that's the only place in Pathfinder.. just what leaped to mind.
So I would not go so far as to claim 'not even hinted upon' as it's directly in the bestiary for pathfinder and not just in one place there.
Clearly, we are talking about PLAYER options here, not monster rules. Unless I am mis-reading and from what I can tell, fractional BAB/saves is only used when advancing racial HD of monsters or creating entirely new monster races. It is not used if/when you apply class levels to a monster race, which is what we are talking about here.
|
|
Permanency has been banned in every major network campaign since Living City. It's not a decision that was made capriciously, it's part of a whole package of banns that are done for a very basic reason, to keep player power curves within a reasonable limit of variation. And to keep NPC tactics such as dispel magic usable without a whole ton of player angst.
I played LG. I didn't play LC nor any of the other D&D 2e and 3e campaigns other than when RPGA was in its infancy. Some of these, I know, also had non-XP based approaches to character advancement and associated wealth by level. Some of them, for example, basically went with level bumps at fixed points of the campaign, or a fixed budget for equipment at a given level. I know you know that, LazarX, but am spelling it out for others.
It is simply not practical to ban parts of a mechanic or make complicated modifications to them, when the campaign as a whole doesn't really need the mechanic.
I think it has been worthwhile to review the thinking, given that PF having removed the XP requirement, which is one of the more egregious aspects of the power curve issue. The XP connection results in a resource upgrade for a GP cost and lower XP. Basically, doing so increases the power rating of a character at both sides of the ratio of power:level.
However, I'm coming to the conclusion that the only real rationale for including it is because it is in the CRB, but there are multiple arguments against, some of which include some FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) factors. Some of those arguments may be a bit eroded given the XP cost removal, but I'm tending to the judgement that the potential and/or perceived negative aspects aren't worth the inclusion.
|
|
There's nothing about permanency that is troubling to an organized campaign
That's clearly an opinion and you are entitled to yours. However, there are many who disagree and at this point, I doubt that many, if anyone, will be swayed from one side to the other, in either direction.
Feel free to debate it ad nauseum, just don't presume that your opinion on the effect permanency would have on organized play is the only right one.
|
|
It comes down to a judgement call, weighing the pros and cons of each side of the decision. Some will but more weight behind different aspects that go into that decision, and those values may vary based upon what is viewed with respect to the inherently varied goals of players, judges, and employee administrators.
|
|
I can see it going horribly wrong if a player uses Greater Dispel Magic and poof, everyone in the party loses the permanent spells they paid for. There are plenty of situations where Greater Dispel would be useful, but if permanency were legal, people would have to think twice about using it. If you allow permanency you will effectively be disallowing greater dispel magic because people could claim pvp if someone uses it and they lose money.
|
|
There's nothing about permanency that is troubling to an organized campaign.
Might I inquire what brings you to that conclusion? Your profile suggests you have very little experience with it (and your lack of stars suggest your lack of experience with it in PFS specifically, at least as far as running the game would go).
Not trying to be argumentative, I'm just curious. :)
|
|
It doesn't say anything about using tables either.I'm sorry, but that is just intentionally ignoring what the rules are in order to create some ambiguity that just isn't there to justify your opinion on how things ought to be. As I have said, IMO from a conceptual perspective fractionals are an interesting idea that merits conversation. However, claiming that the rules (as intended) already permit or even suggest that fractionals are a player option is just not correct. After 5 years, and 26,000 events, this is the first time that fractionals have come up. I have to imagine they would be described more thoroughly, somewhere, anywhere, in Paizo material if they were even intended to be alternate/optional rules. The concept of fractional BAB/saves for Pathfinder Society Organized Play is not a legal option.
I think you have gotten so stuck on the words that you cant see the structure behind them.
It is so absolutely clear that bab and saves are fractional amounts, that the majority of players refer to them by the fraction. Just because the table is written out for ease of use doesn't mean that the math behind them is unwarrented. Additionally the fact that the past 20th level section mentions continueing them along the implied progression indicates that the authors expect the patterns to be clear without expressly stateing them.
|
|
I can see it going horribly wrong if a player uses Greater Dispel Magic and poof, everyone in the party loses the permanent spells they paid for.Its just as much of a problem as sunder has been in organized play.
If *that* is the problem, then fix *that*.
That is something very reasonable for organized play to address simply due to the management of wealth that organized play perforce does.
-James
I keep seeing references but no one has clearly stated the true problem itself.
The problem that needs to be truly addressed is the wealth by level system in organized play. Or getting rid of the expectation that players will be following the WBL. The latter isn't likely to happen so the former should receive the focus.
Simplest solution, any situation which distrupts the WBL is reversed at the end of the session.
That fixes the sundering issue and the biggest permenancy issue.
The other permenancy issue of having low level characters with permenant spells is to allow them only after a certain level (i.e. allowing one to get such spells from npcs when their character lvl is equal to the spell lvl plus 4)
|
|
The problem that needs to be truly addressed is the wealth by level system in organized play.
Might I inquire what brings you to that conclusion? Your profile suggests you have no experience with it (and your lack of stars suggest your lack of experience with it in PFS specifically, at least as far as running the game would go).
Not trying to be argumentative, I'm just curious. :)
|
|
My experience is that people regularly refer to character classes as full BAB, 3/4 BAB, 1/2 BAB, but these are descriptions, not an expectation in any manner that there is any thought that fractional BAB is then used to calculate BAB. Same with saves on the Good/Bad saves side.
Fractional BAB is an alternative rule approach. It is not used in PFS. Why this is dragging out in this thread makes no sense to me.
I won't be posting further on this topic in this thread.
|
|
The problem that needs to be truly addressed is the wealth by level system in organized play.Might I inquire what brings you to that conclusion? Your profile suggests you have no experience with it (and your lack of stars suggest your lack of experience with it in PFS specifically, at least as far as running the game would go).
Not trying to be argumentative, I'm just curious. :)
First, never trust a profile on the internet.
Second, it is quite clear from the arguements and references to sundering issues. These are all about the cost and loss of that money.
Additionally, wbl is generally used as an indicator of power level, and power level is the other major facet, people spend money on something that grants power then it becomes lost and thus the individual has less wealth and power hen they should have. Also it has been argued that power level has to be very carefully balanced in pfs so the authors of pfs modules know what power level to expect when writing a module. So is wbl is used as a major indicator of power level, then obviously it is very bad to let players lose or gain to far outside the wbl. Both sundering and dispelling permenency cause major losses to power and wealth dropping the player well below where they are expected to be.
It is so absolutely clear... that the majority of players refer to them by the fraction.I have never heard a player refer to BABs as the fractional amounts. And I have a pretty extensive history with PFS over the last 2-1/2 years across many regions.
I have. I've also heard strong/medium/weak and rogue/cleric and all sorts of other names. I've been playing 3.x since since 3.0 began. It depends on the people or group. I wouldn't say anyone has the outright majority though, I certainly don't keep statistics on it. I will say while I do prefer fractional, and I think it greatly helps balance, from all I know its not the way you do it RAW.
Back on track with permanency, I hate the idea of having something I payed a good amount of gold for removed by a spell. A foe who can spam it would be a nightmare(does that exist in PFS?) Sunder creeps are pretty bad, and I don't think we have many(if any?) of those in society, and if we apply the same logic to dispel and permanency that's just another mess. When you GM for players with permanency in a home game you can kind of have to watch for that, but its much easier to resupply them or house rule something in the first place.
|
Most common things I hear are "fighter BAB or Cleric BAB" mostly because that's what I say.
On the internet I see 3/4 BAB written quite often.
the mult-classing rules are very clear. You look at each class individually and then you add them all together at the end. No fractional BAB advancement in PF(S). I am fairly amazed that Andrew has never heard that however, not a comment either way just legitimately surprised.
Either way, all of that discussion has literally nothing to do with Permanency.
as I see it permanency comes down to 2 major questions.
1) is it too powerful. I'd say no.
2) Will it cause more problems then it has benefits? Probably.
There are things with dispel magic in the game, players losing decent sized chunk of wealth creates a lot of upset folks (heck, even when they lose nothing but the PP they were doing nothing with on a raise dead people get upset.
In addition to this, it also hurts the player's wealth by level and can leave them too far behind, actually weakening their party at higher levels.
Because of these things I think it's completely fine from a power perspective, but probably negative for the campaign as a whole, creating upset players and significantly altering wealth by level.
I will say the limit of one MW transformation seems pretty unnecessary to me (it's not like it saves you money...) Secret Page on the other hand is needed, or else you just scribe all your spells for free.
I like permanency, and would love to use it, but I believe it would be a negative for the campaign as a whole.