Please reconsider "Rebuilds" for after the Advanced Class Guide Playtest


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 74 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

This post is intended for campaign staff (Mike Brock and John Compton).

As it stands, according to Additional Resources, once the playtest is over:

Quote:
You will be forced to update your character—adjusting only the features that have changed, not rebuilding entirely—once the Pathfinder RPG Advanced Class Guide is released.

Please reconsider this decision. This decision will make it much less likely that people will be willing to try out the new classes, and at the moment, the playtest would greatly benefit from observations of how the new classes function in Pathfinder Society.

Currently, there are discussions going around the playtest boards (some of which have even been noted as being flagged for dev team review by Jason Buhlman and Sean K. Reynolds) about making relatively major changes (at least in a PFS context) to some of the classes, including but not limited to:
1) What weapons certain classes can use with their class abilities (Swashbuckler).
2) Which ability scores are used for certain class features (Slayer).
3) Whether or not certain abilities should be scrapped altogether and replaced with a new mechanic (Bloodrager, Investigator).
4) Whether the Hybrid Classes qualify for feats that require levels in the base classes (Brawler, Swashbuckler, Warpriest).

These changes might cause a character build in Society to become very different and even potentially unplayable; for example, a weapon that has had a great deal of money invested into it might become unusable, certain saving throw DCs might become very low, or certain characters might lose access to certain feat chains that are integral to their build.

I do not think there is any harm in allowing a free rebuild for those who are willing to try out these new classes and provide feedback for Paizo to improve its products. I think it would greatly increase the number of people willing to provide feedback if a rebuild option were provided. Allowing this one-time rebuild should not lead to any exploitation of the rules; rebuilds have already been allowed in the past for those who have had their character class changed (for example, the Hellknight prestige class). Perhaps it would work to require that the people who receive a full rebuild must have filled out the ACG survey and were thus providing feedback for the playtest?

The people who are willing to work with Paizo to test these new rules should not be punished due to potential changes being made to the character classes.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Alaska—Anchorage aka Dragnmoon

The Guide already allows Some Rebuilds options for Playtesting.

PFS Guide pg 27 wrote:

Playtests and Errata

The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is a living game, and whether in the form of a playtest that varies from its final incarnation, conversion from the 3.5 rules set to the Pathfinder RPG, or an errata or FAQ to the Core Rules, sometimes game elements change in the course of a PC’s career. The following guidelines allow players to update or convert existing characters to use the most current rules. When rebuilding your character in any way, you must describe all changes on your next Chronicle sheet in the Notes section, and your GM must initial that section.

If a feat or trait changes or is removed from the Additional Resources list: You have two options. First, you may either switch the old feat for an updated feat of the same name in another legal source (if available), ignoring any prerequisites of the new feat you do not meet. Alternatively, you may replace the feat entirely with another feat for which you meet all the prerequisites.

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.

If a class or prestige class changes in such a way that you no longer have proficiency with a given weapon or armor type: You may sell back the affected equipment and only the affected equipment at full market value.

Dark Archive

I'm confused. They said you will be allowed to rebuild based on the parts of the class that changed.

If they change the weapon rules, you can change the weapon you sunk your money into.

How exactly will a change make a character unplayable in a way that is not related to the change at all (an thus open to rebuild when the time comes)?

Liberty's Edge

I was simply confused because the Additional Resources states that:

Quote:
You will be forced to update your character—adjusting only the features that have changed, not rebuilding entirely—once the Pathfinder RPG Advanced Class Guide is released.

Additionally, Mike Brock stated in a thread that:

Michael Brock wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
Will we have the option to change out of the play test classes when it is finished?
Only through the retraining rules as they are currently laid out.

The PFS Guide, as you mentioned Dragnmoon, does allow changes and even full rebuilds in certain cases. If the PFS Guide rules apply here, then I am happy with the playtest as it stands.

However, the Additional Resources page and Mike Brock's quote above do not match what is stated in the guide. (Finlanderboy's question about changing out of the playtest classes would be covered by point 2 in the guide, allowing a full rebuild to current XP. However, Mike suggested that the Ultimate Campaign retraining rules would be necessary to change out of the Playtest classes.)

Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Alaska—Anchorage aka Dragnmoon

I am assuming the Additional Resources Rebuild restriction is for those who want to rebuild beyond reasons already given in the Guide.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Dragnmoon wrote:
I am assuming the Additional Resources Rebuild restriction is for those who want to rebuild beyond reasons already given in the Guide.

That's how I read it as well Dragnmoon.


As I understand if you play test and do not like it. Well too bad you are stuck with that class even if it changed.

So thanks for testing this for us. Now you are stuck with it.

I was thinking of making one with my DM credit, but with no rebuild I will wait until things settle because I do not know how things will change.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Agent, United Kingdom—England—Chester aka Paz

If you see the risk of your character concept being invalidated as too high, why not play a non-PFS game, or wait until the full book is out?

Grand Lodge 5/5 Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My post was referring to full rebuilds. Part of the classes that change will be allowed to be changed as has always been the policy. However, you don't get to play a arcanist, for example, and decide you don't like it then completely rebuild into a paladin. Full, complete, free rebuilds are not being offered.


Paz wrote:
If you see the risk of your character concept being invalidated as too high, why not play a non-PFS game, or wait until the full book is out?

That was the solution I offered in my post.

If I play a bloodrager so I can get a 30' feet reach attack, and then that ability gets removed I do not want to be stuck spending the chronicles on it.


With that stated, I guess the answer is clear for me, not to test anything in PFS

4/5

CWheezy wrote:
With that stated, I guess the answer is clear for me, not to test anything in PFS

Or playtest something for 3xp and then hold that character until the final version is published.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

CWheezy wrote:
With that stated, I guess the answer is clear for me, not to test anything in PFS

This is certainly ok. Play testing isn't for everyone.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Wisconsin—Madison aka Totenpfuhl

redward wrote:
CWheezy wrote:
With that stated, I guess the answer is clear for me, not to test anything in PFS
Or playtest something for 3xp and then hold that character until the final version is published.

That is what I am doing with an Investigator, sadly limiting the input I can put into the playtest. But that is the way it goes.

Liberty's Edge

Mike,

If this is the case, I would ask you to please reconsider and allow full rebuilds for play testers after the final book is released.

Many of the classes are being heavily modified; certain character concepts may not fit the revised versions of these classes. For example, to use the class you brought up, it was announced that the Arcanist is going to be almost completely redesigned after feedback; the arcanist is now going to represent an "eater of magic" or "magic absorber" rather than someone who was "born gifted and researched their talents." This redesign might not fit a character that someone wants to play; I do not think it is fair to punish them for using their time to provide Paizo with feedback and input, especially when that feedback led to a major change in the class.

Because (barring the use of GM stars) credit can only be gained for a given scenario once as a player, every play opportunity is precious. Forcing someone to change their character concept as the classes are developed and released will thus greatly discourage them from participating in the playtests, which will harm Paizo and the Adcanced Class Guide as a whole.

Allowing a rebuild after the playtest is over, even just a partial rebuild of only the playtest classes, would greatly increase the helpful feedback that Paizo receives and help them provide a higher quality product. Pathfinder Society scenarios are a perfect way to ensure that these new classes receive a balanced playtest, and paricipants should be encouraged rather than punished.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tristan Windseeker wrote:
Because (barring the use of GM stars) credit can only be gained for a given scenario once as a player, every play opportunity is precious. Forcing someone to change their character concept as the classes are developed and released will thus greatly discourage them from participating in the playtests, which will harm Paizo and the Adcanced Class Guide as a whole.

You know, if someone's goal really is to help with the playtesting, people can choose to do playtests without PFS credit. Those who want to play the new classes before they're released AND want to simultaneously get PFS credit for doing so are going to have to accept a certain level of risk.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Yeah, there's nothing stopping you from grabbing your favorite scenarios and a group of friends and making whatever level characters you want and running them through the scenario for no credit. I'm sure the developers would appreciate it, and it'd give you a goal to build a character towards if you enjoyed the class at whatever level you played.


If we accept that PFS scenarios are intended to reflect good game balance--and I'm not disputing that, I'm just saying, if we hinge the argument on that--playing them for no credit actually does present an issue: Either they're playing something they've run/played before, in which case they know what they'll be facing and it's not an accurate test, or they're playing something new for no credit, which makes it less fun later when they play it with their PFS character.

Trust me when I say Mr. Windseeker doesn't get to play many scenarios before he runs them. Trust me also when I say he's one of the guys you want stress-testing your new classes.

I can see both sides of the argument, but I don't think it's going to break anything to say "class levels of playtest classes can be rebuilt after the playtest."

Grand Lodge

Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
Either they're playing something they've run/played before, in which case they know what they'll be facing and it's not an accurate test,

I dont think this is necessarily true. I wont speak for anyone else, but I am more than capable of knowing what I will be facing and still playing the game as if I didnt.


Seth Gipson wrote:
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
Either they're playing something they've run/played before, in which case they know what they'll be facing and it's not an accurate test,
I dont think this is necessarily true. I wont speak for anyone else, but I am more than capable of knowing what I will be facing and still playing the game as if I didnt.

To the point where you'd be willing to call the playtest results just as accurate as if you'd been improving the whole time?


Seth Gipson wrote:
I dont think this is necessarily true. I wont speak for anyone else, but I am more than capable of knowing what I will be facing and still playing the game as if I didnt.

Technically there's no way for you to know how true that is. More to the point, there's no way to prove it one way or the other. You're essentially arguing that a human has the ability to play both sides of chessboard as if they were separate people. That's not knowable.


Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:

If we accept that PFS scenarios are intended to reflect good game balance--and I'm not disputing that, I'm just saying, if we hinge the argument on that--playing them for no credit actually does present an issue: Either they're playing something they've run/played before, in which case they know what they'll be facing and it's not an accurate test, or they're playing something new for no credit, which makes it less fun later when they play it with their PFS character.

I would argue the more variables you remove the more accurate the test. Unknown class & Unknown scenario would be less accurate than Unknown class & Known scenario.

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Curaigh wrote:
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:

If we accept that PFS scenarios are intended to reflect good game balance--and I'm not disputing that, I'm just saying, if we hinge the argument on that--playing them for no credit actually does present an issue: Either they're playing something they've run/played before, in which case they know what they'll be facing and it's not an accurate test, or they're playing something new for no credit, which makes it less fun later when they play it with their PFS character.

I would argue the more variables you remove the more accurate the test. Unknown class & Unknown scenario would be less accurate than Unknown class & Known scenario.

Yeah. When the magus playtest was out, I had more time than I do now. I ran a party of five (Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue, and Bard) through Azlant Ridge a total of 15 times, once for each class replaced by a magus, at each of the three subtiers. The standardization was very useful.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Northwest aka WalterGM

N N 959 wrote:
Seth Gipson wrote:
I dont think this is necessarily true. I wont speak for anyone else, but I am more than capable of knowing what I will be facing and still playing the game as if I didnt.
Technically there's no way for you to know how true that is. More to the point, there's no way to prove it one way or the other. You're essentially arguing that a human has the ability to play both sides of chessboard as if they were separate people. That's not knowable.

As long as replaying is legally allowed in PFS as an option, or playing a scenario after GMing it for that matter, there's no reason why Seth's comment here isn't valid.

It is possible to play the game without allowing metaknowledge to influence character decision. He and others players (myself included), make a good faith effort to not allow metaknowledge to spoil the game.

Obviously it's impossible to erase metaknowledge without the aid of one of the MIB memory erasers, but we can be mature and play our characters in such a way that the experience for others isn't soiled.

Grand Lodge

Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
Seth Gipson wrote:
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
Either they're playing something they've run/played before, in which case they know what they'll be facing and it's not an accurate test,
I dont think this is necessarily true. I wont speak for anyone else, but I am more than capable of knowing what I will be facing and still playing the game as if I didnt.
To the point where you'd be willing to call the playtest results just as accurate as if you'd been improving the whole time?

Maybe not 'just as accurate' to the degree of if we wanted to make this a scientific study, but Id be willing to be that we arent going to do that.


Seth Gipson wrote:
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
Seth Gipson wrote:
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
Either they're playing something they've run/played before, in which case they know what they'll be facing and it's not an accurate test,
I dont think this is necessarily true. I wont speak for anyone else, but I am more than capable of knowing what I will be facing and still playing the game as if I didnt.
To the point where you'd be willing to call the playtest results just as accurate as if you'd been improving the whole time?

Maybe not 'just as accurate' to the degree of if we wanted to make this a scientific study, but Id be willing to be that we arent going to do that.

It seems like your answer to my question would be "No," then.

Grand Lodge

Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
Seth Gipson wrote:
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
Seth Gipson wrote:
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
Either they're playing something they've run/played before, in which case they know what they'll be facing and it's not an accurate test,
I dont think this is necessarily true. I wont speak for anyone else, but I am more than capable of knowing what I will be facing and still playing the game as if I didnt.
To the point where you'd be willing to call the playtest results just as accurate as if you'd been improving the whole time?

Maybe not 'just as accurate' to the degree of if we wanted to make this a scientific study, but Id be willing to be that we arent going to do that.

It seems like your answer to my question would be "No," then.

A sarcastic no at most. What I am saying is that since this playtest is for the hypothetical balance of classes in a game and not going to be used as some sort of documented proof in the dissertation of a scientific paper that is going to lead to a shift in how we view the very nature of our world, then yea, I think it's close enough.

If you dont, then ok.


Seth Gipson wrote:

A sarcastic no at most. What I am saying is that since this playtest is for the hypothetical balance of classes in a game and not going to be used as some sort of documented proof in the dissertation of a scientific paper that is going to lead to a shift in how we view the very nature of our world, then yea, I think it's close enough.

If you dont, then ok.

What I'm saying is, "This will give us better data and cost us nothing."

What you're saying is, "The data we're getting is good enough, so there's no point in improving it, even though it would cost us nothing."

Why wouldn't we want better data if it costs us nothing?

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because rebuilds are the Devil and only used by munchkins to create broken characters/game the system. Rebuilds are also like bed bugs in that once you let them in you can't get rid of them. Or something like that.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Northwest aka WalterGM

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
Seth Gipson wrote:

A sarcastic no at most. What I am saying is that since this playtest is for the hypothetical balance of classes in a game and not going to be used as some sort of documented proof in the dissertation of a scientific paper that is going to lead to a shift in how we view the very nature of our world, then yea, I think it's close enough.

If you dont, then ok.

What I'm saying is, "This will give us better data and cost us nothing."

What you're saying is, "The data we're getting is good enough, so there's no point in improving it, even though it would cost us nothing."

Why wouldn't we want better data if it costs us nothing?

I suspect allowing full rebuilds into different classes at the end of the playtest is only going to affect a very small group. If people want to playtest a class, they're going to. PFS credit or not. I think allowing people to rebuild into different classes is unnecessary and will cause more headaches than it would prevent.

I envision these and other comments will pop up on the forums if full, regret free rebuilds are allowed.

So my T1 GM boon that I used to get a free rebuild is useless? Since anyone can rebuild out of a playtest class? Thanks for something that's no longer unique or rewarding.

I had a player build a _____ when it was still broken and get to level ___. Now that it's weaker, he gets to rebuild entirely? That doesn't seem fair.

As a GM, now I have to deal with _____ audits all from people rebuilding because _____ doesn't work like it used to. Thanks Paizo! *sarcasm*

Grand Lodge

More or less what Walter said, Patrick.


look at it this way. You are stopping the honest people from rebuilding.

I have seen people cheat and rebuild characters with abilities I know they did not have last time i played with them.

I have no way to prove the changes they made, but I know they were using things that were optimal at low level and less valuable past level 2. Well at level 3 that person said they never picked that ability.

SO to me this says the dishonest people will rebuild.

The honest people will either get stuck with a class that changes from what they first signed up for, or like me they will wait so they do not get stuck with something they do not want and waste the hours playing a character they will never pick up again.


Walter Sheppard wrote:
As long as replaying is legally allowed in PFS as an option, or playing a scenario after GMing it for that matter, there's no reason why Seth's comment here isn't valid.

Not sure what you mean by that. PFS allows it for obvious reasons. But Seth is trying to assert something he can't know. He can believe it to be true, but the very nature of what he's asserting is unknowable to him and given the nature of human existence not provable one way or the other.

Quote:
It is possible to play the game without allowing metaknowledge to influence character decision.

You have no way to determine the extent to which the knowledge of the consequences of a decision influences that decision when you specifically don't want that knoweldge to influence that decision....:) (Say that 10 times as fast as you can.)

Let me give you an example. You GM a game with a complex conundrum. Now you play that game. How do you simulate solving the problem as a player given you already know the answer? You have no way of knowing whether you could solve that problem without knowing the answer...once you know the answer.

Quote:
He and others players (myself included), make a good faith effort to not allow metaknowledge to spoil the game.

Based on what Patrick is saying, I don't think that's his concern. I believe Patrick is questioning the integrity of the data.

Honestly, it's not a big deal from my perspective. I just made an observation that Seth can't know the extent of his objectivity.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

Unless the problem has mechanical components and isn't just on the players to solve, character class matters little. When I played The Disappeared after running it, I just remained silent on the cipher part.


Well here is another outcoem you may have to deal with.

You play an arcanist dump cha. They change it so Cha is a major component to your spell casting. Well too bad so sad, better spend that presitge to rebuild completely into a wizard. Also better hope they incorporatre that with the rebuild rules since it is class not listed to cost less.

I think it is dangerous for anyone in PFS to do the playtest. Because what you sign up for may not be what you get.

Now I have heard of other people getting free rebuilds when they misunderstood the rules. I spoke with someone at gencon that honestly picked a mestiary feat and got special permission to rebuild part of his character.

So...

Walter Sheppard wrote:

So my T1 GM boon that I used to get a free rebuild is useless? Since anyone can rebuild out of a playtest class? Thanks for something that's no longer unique or rewarding.

I had a player build a _____ when it was still broken and get to level ___. Now that it's weaker, he gets to rebuild entirely? That doesn't seem fair.

As a GM, now I have to deal with _____ audits all from people rebuilding because _____ doesn't work like it used to. Thanks Paizo! *sarcasm*

These I have no concern for since other people have gotten rebuilds for various reasons.

Sovereign Court 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Finlanderboy wrote:

Well here is another outcoem you may have to deal with.

You play an arcanist dump cha. They change it so Cha is a major component to your spell casting. Well too bad so sad, better spend that presitge to rebuild completely into a wizard. Also better hope they incorporatre that with the rebuild rules since it is class not listed to cost less.

Guide to Society Organized Play, Pg. 27 wrote:
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.

There are already provisions in place if your class is severely changed. No one is saying that you can't use those.


James McTeague wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:

Well here is another outcoem you may have to deal with.

You play an arcanist dump cha. They change it so Cha is a major component to your spell casting. Well too bad so sad, better spend that presitge to rebuild completely into a wizard. Also better hope they incorporatre that with the rebuild rules since it is class not listed to cost less.

Guide to Society Organized Play, Pg. 27 wrote:
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.
There are already provisions in place if your class is severely changed. No one is saying that you can't use those.

Amd your headband of vast int that you bought?

Grand Lodge 5/5 Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

Finlanderboy wrote:
James McTeague wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:

Well here is another outcoem you may have to deal with.

You play an arcanist dump cha. They change it so Cha is a major component to your spell casting. Well too bad so sad, better spend that presitge to rebuild completely into a wizard. Also better hope they incorporatre that with the rebuild rules since it is class not listed to cost less.

Guide to Society Organized Play, Pg. 27 wrote:
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.
There are already provisions in place if your class is severely changed. No one is saying that you can't use those.
Amd your headband of vast int that you bought?

You sell it back for half price and continue playing the game we all love.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Brock wrote:


You sell it back for half price and continue playing the game we all love.

No thanks, I will wait until things settle. Being dinked by something as petty as that would make me regret spending a dime on the game.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Finlanderboy wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:


You sell it back for half price and continue playing the game we all love.
No thanks, I will wait until things settle. Being dinked by something as petty as that would make me regret spending a dime on the game.

Fair enough. We don't want one small thing like that to ruin your entire gaming experience for the foreseeable years to come, so I concur you shouldn't participate in the play test in the organized play environment. Hopefully you have better luck in a home game.


Sigh...

How can a request for a reconsideration of a decision regarding character adjustments be considered for FAQ?

Does anybody even know what a FAQ is anymore or has demanding one every time somebody scratches a mole on their butt just become a knee-jerk reaction?

Grand Lodge 5/5 Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

Bruunwald wrote:

Sigh...

How can a request for a reconsideration of a decision regarding character adjustments be considered for FAQ?

Does anybody even know what a FAQ is anymore or has demanding one every time somebody scratches a mole on their butt just become a knee-jerk reaction?

You can request right here. What would you like reconsidered? Also, since you have no PFS sessions recorded, are you asking for an adjustment to a PFS FAQ or the overall game itself? If asking for PFS, I would respectfully request you have some reported experience in participating in PFS before requesting a change be made that would affect the 60,000+ players with at least one recorded session in PFS organized play.

Shadow Lodge

Jiggy wrote:
Tristan Windseeker wrote:
Because (barring the use of GM stars) credit can only be gained for a given scenario once as a player, every play opportunity is precious. Forcing someone to change their character concept as the classes are developed and released will thus greatly discourage them from participating in the playtests, which will harm Paizo and the Adcanced Class Guide as a whole.
You know, if someone's goal really is to help with the playtesting, people can choose to do playtests without PFS credit. Those who want to play the new classes before they're released AND want to simultaneously get PFS credit for doing so are going to have to accept a certain level of risk.

Mmmm... hybrid tears...


Mike, let me see if I can clarify why people are upset.

Right now, your ruling is consistent with the way the last two playtests played out. While the Gunslinger saw a farily minor revision, and the Ninja got some fairly serious balance tweaks, the soul of the three UC classes was pretty much intact throughout. There were no major revisions to the Magus either.

Even going back to the APG, no Playtest class has ever received a core mechanic change, and there's definitely an argument that the Summoner needed one badly.

Right now, we've been told about a third of the ACG playtest document just hit the cutting room floor, with more all but guaranteed to follow. This isn't just the usual playtest revisions, this is reaching the level where one class may be completely rewritten and huge changes still to come.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for the clarification, Chris. I have to be honest that I haven't read much of the play test feedback yet as I've been at JimCon in Winnipeg and Ucon in Detroit, and have been on the road for 12 days.

If something drastically changes about a class, such as a primary stat changing from INT to CHA or some such, then we will certainly address it. Additionally, almost every situation can be covered under the current guidelines. However, giving a carte Blanche and allowing full rebuilds after the play test is completed would do more harm than good. If someone buys a wand and has used 34 charges, do you allow a full refund since they wouldn't be able to use the wand due to changes to the class? There are a good many problems I can foresee arising by just allowing a free, full rebuild.

When I am back in the office next week, I will be able to sit down and chat with some folks at work to get a better idea of what changes are forecasted or what might be coming down the pipe. However, I've got to be honest and let the player base know that I am leaning to letting this play test follow the same course as the previous play tests. People forecasted doom and gloom then and the system worked relatively well.


Michael Brock wrote:
If something drastically changes about a class, such as a primary stat changing from INT to CHA or some such...

I'm at work so don't have time to find the exact quote, but I believe this is already confirmed as under discussion for the Arcanist. And that's the minor change to the class.


Too late to go back and edit - what just hit me about what is confirmed as a definite change for the Arcanist is that it will be able to destroy magic items to fuel its' own spellcasting in some unspecified manner. This may not be PFS compatible depending on how it's implemented.

Silver Crusade

I'd like to propose/ask about something related to the new classes, if it's okay.

Would you consider allowing rebuilds (not Prestige-spending retrains, but outright rebuilds) of existing characters to bring them into one of these classes, provided the character can demonstrate a clear link to the new 'hybrid' class?

For example, let's say someone is playing a Fighter-Cleric or their build was clearly setting up such a multi-class by their next level-up. Could they instead convert the relevant Fighter and/or Cleric levels, and only those levels (not any other class) to Warpriest? Or Fighter-Gunslinger going over to Swashbuckler? The rebuild would have to involve classes listed as the ACG class' components, so there would be no "Paladin suddenly becomes an Arcanist" behavior as was discussed above.

This would be for the benefit of people who were unambiguously working toward a specific character concept, and now new game mechanics exist (albeit in playtest format currently) that make the concept much easier to bring into play. That's not strictly an optimization concern; anyone who was seriously pursuing concepts now covered by ACG classes was probably not going out of their way to break the game. This just lets them do it without a lot of multiclassing.

I'll live if you say "No", but I think it'd be really neat to let people swap over if their character has a demonstrable link to the class they want to rebuild to. It would even be pretty easy to write rules for it. Something like "You may only retrain levels that are listed as part of the ACG class you intend to use, and may only exchange them on a 1 for 1 basis". That is, a Cleric 6/Fighter 3/Bard 2 could become a Warpriest 9/Bard 2. This probably needs a tad of wording clean-up, but it seems like it would work.

1 to 50 of 74 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Please reconsider "Rebuilds" for after the Advanced Class Guide Playtest All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.