FAQs about SLAs, and the impact on Prestige Classes

[Matthew Morris]

Wasn't this similar to the mysterious stranger gunslinger and some rules. Where it was unclear and people were taking advantage of it, then it became clear?

I've still not seen a ruling on if you can emulate a spell as being 'on your class list' for example. If it is ever clarified you can, then I've wasted 750 GP on a wand of aspect of the falcon. If you can't, then I've wasted 1000 GP on a page of spell knowledge. I ask the GM's ruling at every table I play Samiel, and he has both. If/When it is clarified one way or the other I'm out gold.

Yes, it's a shared world, and yes, we all make sacrifices. I can't play a Changeling, Skinwalkerm or Kayal, for example, nor can I play a Vanguard or a Psion.

[TriOmegaZero]

BigDTBone wrote:

Maybe since you don't even have an example of what might have possibly triggered the clause you were so happy to cite, you should instead accept that some people are not happy and back off telling them, "you should have seen it coming. Neener neener" (paraphrase, don't hold me accountable). Nobody saw this comming and it is completely unreasonable tell people that they should have known their builds were in Jeopardy.

You're putting words in my mouth. Please stop.

I pointed out that the blessings of the PDT came with a clause that it may change. That was all.

You're welcome to not be happy about it.

[thejeff]

Matthew Morris wrote:

Wasn't this similar to the mysterious stranger gunslinger and some rules. Where it was unclear and people were taking advantage of it, then it became clear?

Not really, IIRC. In this case, it was unclear, then there was a FAQ making it clearly allowed (with the caveat that it could change), then there was another FAQ changing it to clearly not allowed.

[Andrew Torgerud]

I believe Steven's reference was to a James Jacobs post with that wording - not directly in the old faq.

Its been made pretty clear no one in the general community saw this coming. Although I would argue the old Faq was a bad ruling that is now corrected - neither here nor there - i agree the term 'dodgy' was ill-advised.

This situation is not a matter of the 'banhammer'. The rules of the game changed. The Society organizers implemented in as clear cut and simple a method as they saw reasonable.

@pauljathome - they aren't inherently abusive.. based on the past, any such leeway would be abused by portions of the community.

@BigDTBone - This thread and forum are not the place to argue the merits of the FAQ's change - but to have a productive discussion about the implementations and effect on PFS.

[BigDTBone]

Andrew Torgerud wrote:

I believe Steven's reference was to a James Jacobs post with that wording - not directly in the old faq.

Its been made pretty clear no one in the general community saw this coming. Although I would argue the old Faq was a bad ruling that is now corrected - neither here nor there - i agree the term 'dodgy' was ill-advised.

This situation is not a matter of the 'banhammer'. The rules of the game changed. The Society organizers implemented in as clear cut and simple a method as they saw reasonable.

@pauljathome - they aren't inherently abusive.. based on the past, any such leeway would be abused by portions of the community.

@BigDTBone - This thread and forum are not the place to argue the merits of the FAQ's change - but to have a productive discussion about the implementations and effect on PFS.

I made no value arguments of any kind. I saw passive-aggressive behavior toward someone expressing frustration at the situation and challenged it.

["Inari"]

Andrew Torgerud wrote:

This situation is not a matter of the 'banhammer'. The rules of the game changed. The Society organizers implemented in as clear cut and simple a method as they saw reasonable.

@BigDTBone - This thread and forum are not the place to argue the merits of the FAQ's change - but to have a productive discussion about the implementations and effect on PFS.

Hey Andrew,

This is all good... The rules did change, and the society organizers implemented the changes. But when you are running a game and then decide to change the rules... do not you allow your players to change their character options without having to go through a retraining process ?? after all..YOU changed the rules they play with, no ?

["Inari"]

Matthew Morris wrote:

If/When it is clarified one way or the other I'm out gold.

Yes, it's a shared world, and yes, we all make sacrifices. I can't play a Changeling, Skinwalkerm or Kayal, for example, nor can I play a Vanguard or a Psion.

I an okay to pay the GP for retraining Mathew, but 15 PP ??? I am not changing my character options because I changed my mind, I am changing them because the society organizers changed their mind...

And you can play any of the options you mentioned above in a home game.. this is not the same..

[Jiggy]

Matthew Morris wrote:

Wasn't this similar to the mysterious stranger gunslinger and some rules. Where it was unclear and people were taking advantage of it, then it became clear?

No, this is a case where the rules were indeed clear, and then when people who didn't like it tried to say it wasn't clear, the Design Team stepped in to affirm that it really was totally legal and legit, and then left it there for more than a year.

So no, not really similar at all.

[Chris Lambertz]

This thread has been spiraling for a bit now and I don't think it's really been about the actual FAQ, so we'll be locking. I really suggest that if you have feedback about the general FAQ process (both in respect to PFS and not), that you make a new thread for it, as isolating posts in unrelated threads is not the easiest to keep track of. Also, the amount of "grar" and personal comments is really unnecessary.