|
I think the PFS guide allows retraining if a class changes (persumably as an option in this instance, since grandfathering the prestige classes is specifically allowed), though I think characters that were working towards the prestige classes are out of luck.
If a class, prestige class, or a class feature-dependent ability score is altered: You may rebuild your character to its current XP, maintaining the same equipment.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just as a reminder (I can't find the post Mike Brock made saying this at the moment, but I 100% know he said this) -
"If you think it's a loophole, use it at your own risk, for it may close without warning"
(I think that was in reference to using weapon cords for fast two-gun-mojo fast-reloading cheese for gunslingers, but it does apply universally)
It's a fair point, Mike, but there were a number of posts made by various People in Positions of Rank that said, more or less, "We understand what's happening and how this ruling is being used, and we're okay with it." I can't really blame anyone who read one of those posts and said, "Hunh. Guess it's not a loophole after all then."
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Just as a reminder (I can't find the post Mike Brock made saying this at the moment, but I 100% know he said this) -
"If you think it's a loophole, use it at your own risk, for it may close without warning"
(I think that was in reference to using weapon cords for fast two-gun-mojo fast-reloading cheese for gunslingers, but it does apply universally)
It was in reference to gunslingers that were double-dipping Dex to damage.
"What I will advise is it is a loophole that allows a very cheesy build. A large majority of people know it is a loophole. Do not be surprised when the loophole is closed through errata and we do not allow any type of rebuild. If you are abusing the combo now due to the loophole currently in place, do not complain when you do not get any form of rebuild what so ever in the future."
This current instance isn't quite like that, as the Pathfinder Rules Team are the ones that opened the floodgates in the first place, making a rules "clarification" that nobody could have predicted. Now that clarification has been "re-clarified," and again, nobody could have predicted.
In the end, some people will get the short straw. John and Mike are trying to minimize that and give leniency to the people who already have higher level PCs that were built before this latest clarification.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
"If you think it's a loophole, use it at your own risk, for it may close without warning"
If you're trying to apply this to something explicitly spelled out in an official, binding FAQ, then you're not being reasonable.
There's a difference between reading two different rules in two different places and making a fuzzy connection in one's own mind, and reading an explicit FAQ that just flat-out says that something is legal.
EDIT: Or what Shisumo said.
|
In the end, some people will get the short straw. John and Mike are trying to minimize that and give leniency to the people who already have higher level PCs that were built before this latest clarification.
Yup, plenty of short straws to go around. It is not the end of the world. Now we have to think up new, cool builds.
My character that is affected by this change is a tiefling that was created before the original rules clarification, and in the end was not effected by it, because it was reversed before he could use his Darkness to qualify for Mystic Theurge.
::sigh::
|
Using that logic, why not just make mystic theurge "ability to cast both arcane and divine spells"? Then anyone could play one starting at level three. Would that make the class "not suck" as many seem to indicate?
Funnily enough thats what I allowed a player to do for mummy's mask (A oracle/sorceror/mythic theluge) Seemed to work really well.
It's a fair point, Mike, but there were a number of posts made by various People in Positions of Rank that said, more or less, "We understand what's happening and how this ruling is being used, and we're okay with it." I can't really blame anyone who read one of those posts and said, "Hunh. Guess it's not a loophole after all then."
True, but from the pre-recent changes FAQ:
Edit 7/12/13: The design team is aware that the above answer means that certain races can gain access to some spellcaster prestige classes earlier than the default minimum (character level 6). Given that prestige classes are usually a sub-optimal character choice (especially for spellcasters), the design team is allowing this FAQ ruling for prestige classes. If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements.
So there was some hedging before.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but no evidence has been provided that there are characters being created that are too powerful, no? I mean I'm sure people on the forums went "the sky is falling!" when an early-entry Eldritch Knight or Mystic Theurge whisked by, but I'm curious as to the Paizo staffs' take on that?
|
While I believe this change is overall a positive one, I feel really bad for everyone affected by it. I think grandfathering without notice is great, but I hope that Mike and John will consider grandfathering all characters who have, as of today, at least 4 XP with at least 1 XP as player credit at 2nd level or higher.
That would allow everyone who is currently building toward a prestige class (and counting on early entry) to do so, and it would mitigate—if not eliminate entirely—concern of a mad dash to create your prestige class characters.
The only characters currently in play who couldn't be grandfathered in under this plan are those who are eligible for a complete rebuild anyway (1st-level PCs and GM babies).
This solution would go a long way to lessen the blow to those who are most affected by this decision while having little impact on the rest of us.
I am sure that Mike and John have discussed this extensively among themselves; it doesn't seem like the plan of grandfathering was made lightly. But I hope they will consider this solution a little longer.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements.Correct me if I'm wrong, but no evidence has been provided that there are characters being created that are too powerful, no? I mean I'm sure people on the forums went "the sky is falling!" when an early-entry Eldritch Knight or Mystic Theurge whisked by, but I'm curious as to the Paizo staffs' take on that?
Please don't have this discussion on the PFS forums.
This was a Pathfinder Rules Team decision, and they can field those kind of questions here.
|
|
Fixed that for ya. ;)
For the Wizard* class, meh. Looks like all you lose is a couple of bonus feats and in return, get (nearly) full spell progression.
A slightly higher cost for Cleric* having to give up additional channel dice and a second domain power, but considering that spellcasting is widely considered the most power aspect of the game, getting dual-progressing spell charts more than makes up for it.
|
|
That sounds like a potentially reasonable alternate route to my prior suggestion, The Fox, that would completely eliminate a rush to get to Mystic Theurge or what have you by a particular date.
Right. If the goals are (1) do the least amount of damage to characters who are built around that option, and (2) eliminate the potential of a mad rush like the planetouched rush, then I think this solution is better than just grandfathering those PCs who are already in prestige classes.
(1) Everyone who was actively working toward a prestige class will be able to continue to do so using the same plan they originally had (or retrain if they are still level 1 or a GM baby)
(2) No one who wasn't working toward a prestige class will be affected. The cost of retraining a character who wasn't on that path just so you can get in during the mad rush would be too onerous.
|
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but no evidence has been provided that there are characters being created that are too powerful
Many player/GMs would argue there is plenty of evidence and the designers are not obligated to explain their decision. Perhaps they feel it was just the wrong interpretation of RAI in the first place, or maybe they did some play-testing and discovered it for themselves, or maybe with all the new material that has been released since the original FAQ was made it has progressed to far into overly powerful.
|
|
Bob, as Walter said there's another thread for that, and as I said I don't actually care to discuss it since it doesn't affect the fact that the ruling has already been made. I'm simply interested in softening the blow toward those working toward a prestige class but not having managed to play a game with a prestige class level yet.
If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements.Correct me if I'm wrong, but no evidence has been provided that there are characters being created that are too powerful, no? I mean I'm sure people on the forums went "the sky is falling!" when an early-entry Eldritch Knight or Mystic Theurge whisked by, but I'm curious as to the Paizo staffs' take on that?
I'd really like to hear about this as well. It seemed to me that after the first few weeks of the forums getting up in arms (on both sides of the argument) that no one had come up with anything really earth-shattering by way of allowing SLAs to qualify. I had no problem with the bet-hedging, but I'd sure like to hear what the "in-play evidence" there is of "characters that are too powerful" because of the old ruling.
And besides, all I ever wanted was to get Arcane Strike for my rogues. :(
|
|
I've gone ahead and moved the discussion to the thread Walter indicated, please continue discussing it here.
I'd like to continue discussing The Fox's suggestion here if we could be so kind!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On a serious note, it would be nice if a grace period was introduced in order to let anyone who was already planning an entire character around a concept this ruling obviates get their one or so games in they needed to be grandfathered. Is that a possibility, John? Because I'm sure a lot of people are on the cusp of entering one of those prestige classes and are very sad right now.
EDIT: Especially anyone who had just taken their first Mystic Theurge level but had not gotten to play a game yet. Now they're stuck at Wizard 2 / Cleric 1 or an even worse level distribution with no way of retraining that as far as I can tell.
The last time they graciously allowed a grace period, and asked that it not be abused. It was abused.
|
|
only request I have is to make the update Red on the FAQ page with a Date so that its a little more clearly spelled out
I personally know some people that wont go onto forums due to trolls, so telling them that the FAQ was updated and it not being in Red they wont see it and refuse to go onto the forums
|
|
Still not fair that my PFS charcter has to compete with shenanigans that she can't possibly pull.
The crux of the issue I see in your comment, is that players or characters should not be competing with one another at all.
We gather together at the table to have fun and have a shared roleplay experience. Not to compete with one another for best character.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
only request I have is to make the update Red on the FAQ page with a Date so that its a little more clearly spelled outUmmm, actually it is...
I was actually meaning the text of the ruling ... I didnt see red till I scrolled to the top and looked at the hyper links - my bad
|
|
I am a Venture officer who spent last weekend at a convention that Mike Brock attended. We hung out, talked about the hobby, etc. He told me NOTHING about this change. Not one word! I just want you to know that VOs were not told, this was held close to the chest.
I'm very sorry for everyone who's character build was hurt by this decision. I know it is frustrating and I feel for you. The leadership tries to do the best it can, and I support their decision.
|
|
Grandfathering with a future grace period date was an invitation for abuse under a strict time limit.John, thanks for engaging with me about this idea. I'd like to posit that this potential grace period would not invite nearly so much abuse, as the Aasimar/Tiefling grandfathering required playing only a single game before the end date. That's very easy to do, even for people that don't play very often.
On the other hand, trying to grandfather in a Mystic Theurge would take a lot of scenarios or at least several modules since you would need to get to level 4.1 in order to qualify for the grandfathering, in the most efficient Mystic Theurge path.
As far as other classes that could be grandfathered, these classes are much, much weaker than the early-entry Mystic Theurge. Early-entry Eldritch Knights are cool, but are already mechanically overshadowed by Paizo's own Magus class; and it still takes until level 3.1 to pull that off.
The only thing i can think of off of the top of my head that you can get into at level 2 and has any kind of "power" element to it is the Bloatmage. While cool, I've never seen anyone complain about a Blcatmage, or even notice if they were early-entried or not to be frank.
Does that make sense, John? I'm hoping to create a compelling argument here that could counteract the potential intense sadness of a decent amount of players. I don't even have any stake in this as I have no such characters in the works.
EDIT: I'd really hope to not get this discussion drowned out, incidentally, so if anyone posting non-constructively could... um... wait a bit on that until we've hashed this out, I'd appreciate it. It's for everyone's benefit I think!
What is it that you are trying to accomplish?
|
|
Just as a reminder (I can't find the post Mike Brock made saying this at the moment, but I 100% know he said this) -
"If you think it's a loophole, use it at your own risk, for it may close without warning"
(I think that was in reference to using weapon cords for fast two-gun-mojo fast-reloading cheese for gunslingers, but it does apply universally)
Close. It was in regards to double dipping Dexterity for damage with a Pistolero because Ultimate Combat had a misprint and forgot to say that Pistol Trainining replaced Gun Training. So people were maliciously assuming they had both.
Edit: Ninja'd
|
|
Sure it isn't a competition but if two players sit down at the same table and one PC can quite literally do everything the other can and then more that second PC may well be left wondering why they bothered turning up if all of their potential contributions are easily overshadowed. People should co-operate but they should also have the chance to meaningfully participate.Still not fair that my PFS charcter has to compete with shenanigans that she can't possibly pull.The crux of the issue I see in your comment, is that players or characters should not be competing with one another at all.
We gather together at the table to have fun and have a shared roleplay experience. Not to compete with one another for best character.
That sounds more like an issue with certain players who create characters that dominate the table. Not the options of the game itself.
|
|
What is it that you are trying to accomplish?
I think I've made it very clear what I'm trying to accomplish, Andrew, I'm not sure where your confusion is. I would like there to be a mechanism for people who have almost but not-quite gotten to play their Mystic Theurge, or Eldritch Knight, or what have you be able to continue with their concept without being left with a bunch of build-up class levels that no longer function as intended.
I have no personal stake in this as I do not have a character on that path, but I know there are people who do and I'd like for them to not be hit harder by this fairly large change than they need to be.
I've made a suggestion for how to do this in a way that I feel has little potential for abuse, and The Fox has made a suggestion that I feel has even LESS potential for abuse.
Make sense?
|
|
What is it that you are trying to accomplish?I think I've made it very clear what I'm trying to accomplish, Andrew, I'm not sure where your confusion is. I would like there to be a mechanism for people who have almost but not-quite gotten to play their Mystic Theurge, or Eldritch Knight, or what have you be able to continue with their concept without being left with a bunch of build-up class levels that no longer function as intended.
I have no personal stake in this as I do not have a character on that path, but I know there are people who do and I'd like for them to not be hit harder by this fairly large change than they need to be.
I've made a suggestion for how to do this in a way that I feel has little potential for abuse, and The Fox has made a suggestion that I feel has even LESS potential for abuse.
Make sense?
Yes. Thanks for the explanation.
While I feel for folks who were building towards a completely legal option, I think the best thing to do is make a clean break.
Not necessarily for abuse reasons, but because anything else will be rife with complexities that will create more questions than answers. Just look at the confusion around the "retrain if there is a change" rules differences in the ACG playtest and the Guide to Organized play. Something that on the surface looked pretty simple got blown up into a big ball of confusion. So much so, that John had to write a blog post about it.
So while I'm sure people can come up with some very reasonable options to avoid the rampant abuse seen in the Tiefling/Aasimar grandfathering, any system like that would have too many moving parts to make it viable for the average player to understand easily.
This is also such a corner case, that we probably are talking in the 10's of characters affected.
|
|
Even if not all that many people are in actuality affected, it seems like a low-effort way to make sure the maximum amount of people are happy, Andrew. If my Wizard 2 / Cleric 1 / Mystic Theurge 1 that I simply hadn't played any games with at level 4 was allowed to actually go into Mystic Theurge, that's so vastly preferable to being stuck at Wizard 2 / Cleric 1 / X 1.
I can't "regain" the games that I spent playing that character, which are significant in number, nor can I likely afford to retrain at those levels. Yes?
|
|
Just as a reminder (I can't find the post Mike Brock made saying this at the moment, but I 100% know he said this) -
"If you think it's a loophole, use it at your own risk, for it may close without warning"
(I think that was in reference to using weapon cords for fast two-gun-mojo fast-reloading cheese for gunslingers, but it does apply universally)
There's a biiiiiig difference between exploiting a complete unknown vs. doing something that has an explicit FAQ entry that permits it, and then yanking and rewriting that FAQ entry in the most contentious and drama causing way possible, as though they are enjoying the suffering of those whose plans they screwed up.
I had some decidedly more choice things to say about this given that I was just about to start running an early entry MT... but given that my VC is here (/wave at Mike), I will restrain myself :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just as a reminder (I can't find the post Mike Brock made saying this at the moment, but I 100% know he said this) -
"If you think it's a loophole, use it at your own risk, for it may close without warning"
(I think that was in reference to using weapon cords for fast two-gun-mojo fast-reloading cheese for gunslingers, but it does apply universally)
There's a biiiiiig difference between exploiting a complete unknown vs. doing something that has an explicit FAQ entry that permits it, and then yanking and rewriting that FAQ entry in the most contentious and drama causing way possible, as though they are enjoying the suffering of those whose plans they screwed up.
I had some decidedly more choice things to say about this given that I was just about to start running an early entry MT... but given that my VC is here (/wave at Mike), I will restrain myself :)
Hyperbole doesn't really help anything.
And to be fair to the design/development rules team, the original FAQ did say they would potentially revisit the ruling in the future.
Now is the future.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For what it is worth I just want a consistent ruleset. I understand that this is a complex game, but I really hate being told that I can't do something while other people can. I would really prefer to go all or nothing. Either don't mess with the rules in this fashion, or make everyone retrain out/retire. I don't get why so many people are cool with the "not anymore" approach. It drives away new players, and it makes those of us who have been playing long enough to know about the exploits but new enough not to have explored them yet insane.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would it cause confusion, Andrew? The Fox's solution is pretty simple. People aren't as easily confused as you seem to be intimating, on the whole, I feel. And those tens of gamers' potential dissatisfaction can easily lead to a ripple effect on their communities. I know of at least two people who essentially decided not to play Core due to the fact that their Mystic Theurges were just shy of playing their first game as a Theurge. This has a larger ripple effect in that while I was previously able to field games of Core in my local community, at present I'm unable to do so, leading to less Pathfinder for everyone else. "Every vote counts," if you want to quote things.
...
EDIT: One of these two individuals loves to plan out his characters, and had plotted his Mystic Theurge's progression lovingly all the way to level 20. That's a ton of effort down the drain and it left him really morose-- but a simple solution like what The Fox or I proposed could rekindle his excitement very easily.
|
|
Why would it cause confusion, Andrew? The Fox's solution is pretty simple.
I have created a thread dedicated to discussing the merits and pitfalls of my proposed solution here. Feel free to move the discussion of this proposal to that thread.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry that I typed one inaccurate statement while I was angry. It appears to have caused a lot of defensive "nuh-uh" responses from the venture officers. My contention was that the campaign coordinator stated that this was discussed, indicating that more than one person knew this was going to happen. I really dislike grandfathering things in as a practice. It bothers me more the more people who know about the change beforehand. I had erroneously assumed that a change such as this would be shared with the venture officers.
I would like to apologize specifically to the venture officers who knew nothing of this and will now be accused of it because of me.
I still hate the change. I hated it when the SLA ruling changed the game the first time. I didn't like how all of a sudden your choice of race was very important to your class choice, when the game had been moving in the opposite direction for so long trying to make every combination viable. I hate it that after the year it took me to get my head around the new way the world works, I am now told it doesn't work that way, except for other people.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this is the future, where is my hover-board, and my jet pack?
Now is the future.
Here is your Hoverboard