|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tended to purchase between 50 and 100 dollars of paizo products a month in support of PFS. Although the direction the PFS decision making is in a direction I do not feel I can pay paizo my money any more.
Changes need and have to happen I agree with that. Now when I sit at a table I use the rules PFS sets establish. When you suddenly change these rules and punish the players for following them. I am insulted and stupefied. I know a couple of players “stuck” with a crane style feat they picked solely for crane wing. They were able to retrain cane wing, but not the feat they picked for it. I agree completely these features were over-powered, but those were the rules the PFS staff gave people. Although the weight of being stuck with build situations that were fairly and honestly given can only be corrected fairly by cheating. Of course you can spend resources to build at a state of agreement with the rules, but you should not be penalized for playing by the rules. Blindsiding people with your rule changes and forcing a cost on them to build a character THEY want with the rules you have is extremely unfair. Since keeping score on your character is an act of honor. This is like keeping your score in golf. The people that cheat will not be bothered by your rule changes because they will just cheat. To the people that have the honor to play fair. Well those people will be affected. Now the people that play fair make sure to spend money buying the books they use to build their characters. Well the people that don’t, not so much. So your rules encourage cheaters that freeload, and discourage spenders that play fair. My solution is that if you character is significantly affected by a rule change you can rebuild. This allows the people with honor to make characters on equal grounds as everyone else with open visible rules. I find the draconian rules in place currently self-destructive to paizo for the reasons mentioned above. I myself that had definite plans to purchase the playtest book when it came out, but now will definitely not purchase it for fear of above notations.
The direction PFS is going with the class faction I no longer find entertaining and actually annoy me. The hidden faction pieces in a scenario that I am unaware of before I start the game is like winning the lotto when I pick a faction that is actually in it. The new implementation of factions makes it worse than before. This ambiguous direction you are heading with factions I find very poorly implemented. Despite how great of a story it is I played everyone but the confirmation and have a vague understanding what is happening. This is because I can only follow the story if there happens to be a faction of that type playing and I get to eves drop. Why should I keep pumping money into a product I find less enjoyable? I have spent money and time on many games and when they longer improve.
Thirdly with the exception of the congenial Mr. Compton when I read the majority of staff posts I find them extremely abrasive. Considering that the people that are posting are people that pay money to your company there should be a level of respect. Even when people are wrong and out of line there is a wrong way to say the right thing. There is a fine line when responding to paying customers and then line needs to be established while not making them regret spending their money on your products. The reason this is important is that one happy customer will tell a couple of people. One upset customer will tell a lot of people. Last weekend I cringed when picking up a box of paizo minis to buy and put them back after remembering a post a staff member of PFS posted to someone else. Even though I knew the poster was in the wrong I was offended by the staff response. Now there is a time you should push a customer away, but this is done. The simple answer is look at the posts Mr. Compton replies and sees how people connect and become positive to him after. Every time you connect with a customer should be a means to improve your relationship with your customers and should be used as such.
Now my birthday is next month my wife planned on buying me a 2 cases(not small boxes) of minis from you guys. When I told her this weekend I planned on a hiatus of purchasing paizo products she got annoyed since she thought she had a great gift planned. I just do not see myself investing into your company with the issues and directions I see the company is heading. I purchased a splat book from you guys just to have a legal trait for my character to add to his roleplaying element. Now I kind of regret it. The reason I write this is because I respect the potential and previous experiences I have had. I also am a person that encourages others to purchase products to show support. I also am aware of the value of this information.
|
There's a lot to reply to there, but given I only have a couple of minutes before dinner...
The hidden faction pieces in a scenario that I am unaware of before I start the game is like winning the lotto when I pick a faction that is actually in it.
You do realise that the specific scenarios that are relevant to each faction have been published on blog posts and the relevant product pages, right?
|
|
There's a lot to reply to there, but given I only have a couple of minutes before dinner...
The hidden faction pieces in a scenario that I am unaware of before I start the game is like winning the lotto when I pick a faction that is actually in it.You do realise that the specific scenarios that are relevant to each faction have been published on blog posts and the relevant product pages, right?
Yes, but do I have character at that level range and faction? Should I wait and not play scenarios until I do?
|
I can agree with you Fin on some points, I definitely think the way factions have changed has been for the worse and I hate the success conditions. I've mostly stayed away from season 5 scenarios because they just don't feel the same without real faction involvement and knowing what the secondary success conditions are can be pretty vague.
Even more so as I run seasons 1-4 scenarios and don't hand out the faction missions I know that it'll usually be through pure luck if the group gets their 2nd prestige point. I don't understand why we did away with faction missions and then the only way to know how to complete the secondary success condition is with the faction mission handout. Either the early scenarios need to have better, or more thought out secondary success conditions or for those early seasons faction missions still count for something.
|
|
I know a couple of players “stuck” with a crane style feat they picked solely for crane wing.
That one is really annoying, and probably fixable.
I get where you're coming from on the faction missions. Half of the problem has been solved by putting the factions involved on the product page, which you should always check out so you can see what an adventure is like when you sign up for it. I think the other half would be to merge the season 4 and 5 methods where not every faction gets a mission but those that do get an individual hand out/ side conference.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
1) couple of players “stuck” with a crane style feat they picked solely for crane wing.
2) My solution is that if you character is significantly affected by a rule change you can rebuild.
3) The direction PFS is going with the class faction I no longer find entertaining
4) majority of staff posts I find them extremely abrasive
1) The only rules "change" I've seen is the Crane Style change. It did alter from block to +4 AC. A minor change to likely align it with intent better.
2) Most if not all these issues you are complaining probably refer to
Everyone knows the rules don't say this but if you insert or remove meanings to certain words, then you can assert the rules mean this awkward meaning.
3) I agree. We don't have the luxury of playing only the scenarios for certain factions with those factions. So you end up playing scenarios for one faction with another faction, etc. While I don't agree it is better than the faction missions of season 4 back, I don't like this system either.
4) I'm confident this all revolves around #2 above. Over the weekend I had a GM in Bonekeep not allow us to take 20 Perception for traps. I said sure and we wasted at least 1 hour rolling a D20 for every square in the dungeon. It was a time sink. It isn't RAW. It isn't RAI. And it is against the dev team's opinion. After the game I showed a thread where the issue was discussed and a dev team member said you can take 20 looking for a trap and never set it off and doing anything else is against RAW/RAI/etc. In that thread people continued for over 150 posts to reject that. If I were the staff and I tell you what a rule says, what it means, how the rules are read to mean what I say, how the rules are intended to work, and you still say "no it doesn't say that" then I'd be surprised if I wasn't abrasive in response. I've seen countess examples of this.
|
|
1) The rule changes thing does seem to happen too much, especially on the eve of a new release. I swear the nerf stuff just to make people buy their new books, as this seems to be a trend. While I can't knock it business wise, I find it tedious and annoying. I totally disagree that the Crane line was OP'd, and I now have a friend who's entire character is shot, even if he spends tons of PA rebuilding his character, its also his only high level character. He hasn't been at FLGS the last few games since the change, so I'm suspecting he quit PFS.
2) In season 1-4 I actually like the direction. I hated faction missions, every room having 4 players yell at you "Do I see a tone tablet." "Are there any papers in the chest," etc., etc. I found they generally derailed the game and dragged down play, not up play. That being said, there were some straight up AWESOME faction missions, but usually it would be 1 or 2 really well thought out missions in a scenario, the others would be bleh! I can nearly always tell what the secondary success condition, and only once out of probably a half dozen times have I said "well, we just failed our secondary success condition" and been wrong, so they aren't that hidden. For these same reason I dislike the season 5 faction missions too, though they are usually a little more drawn out so slightly more entertaining. Still anything that pulls focus from everyone else at the table is bad IMO.
3) The staff does get snippy sometimes, but I've never seen anything that's made me turn away. But ya, professionalism in business is important, even when its games.
|
On rebuilding - agreed, the rebuild options when rule changes happen need to be much more lenient. There's a pretty strong reluctance to disallow them, and I don't see how this helps anyone. There should be a rule for what's considered reasonable, with flexibility based on what the player feels is the smallest reasonable rebuild they can do on their character. That should satisfy everybody.
On faction missions - this isn't really news. We need to be talking solutions here, solutions that aren't just "do what we did before".
On staff professionalism - maybe you've used the wrong word, but to say they're not professional is nonsense. They've made decisions I've disagreed with in the past, and I've had to respect that. Everyone at Paizo is as professional as they come, positive or negative. This is a casual online medium - I'm often surprised they can hold back their frustration considering the amount and the kinds of flak they receive (eg. see Crane Style threads).
This would've been better discussed as 2 or 3 separate threads. The last topic was better sent to staff at Paizo privately.
|
|
On faction missions - this isn't really news. We need to be talking solutions here, solutions that aren't just "do what we did.
I'll admit, on this note my main suggestion would be to keep the Season 5 style where adventures are more catered to two or three factions and bring back faction missions instead of vague blog posts. Extending this, expand that idea to the season 1-4. In the secondary success condition document explain how each scenario is, for example, a "Silver crusade, Andoran and Grand Lodge mission" and then have those faction missions handed out. This would let designers tailor scenarios to have the best Missions showcased and cut out the random "Find that book" or "look at some papers" missions.
But of course this would take too much time and my suggestion to that would open a crowd source Excell document in the secret Venture Officer forum and ask them to vote/suggest on what they think are the best Faction Missions from scenarios past. Not the prettiest of solution which is why I haven't suggested it till now and it doesn't lend itself well to maintaining forward momentum.
|
As far as secondary success conditions go, I feel a lot better about them than I did. The season 5 secondaries all feel pretty intuitive, at least the few season 5 scenarios I've gotten a chance to play so far. The thing that bugs me are the older scenarios that weren't written with secondary success conditions in mind, and as a result some secondaries from 0-4 don't seem to make as much sense as they could. But I think it'll get better.
Finlanderboy, I hope that PFS does not loose you for good. Your comments are always timely, courteous and pertinent. I think I speak for many, that if this is it, you will be missed.
|
|
Considering there are now actual retraining options, I can't see how anyone can complain about not having any way of fixing a feat they now consider dead weight...That's a very expensive price just for taking options that got an errata.
As far as I can see its only crane style that would need to be paid for.
|
|
That's 5 prestige - a minimum of 3 scenario's worth.
If you took Crane Style and Crane Riposte, that's 10 prestige, minimum of 5 scenarios worth.
Gold costs on top of those.
I don't know what other options compliment that build, but other options might need retraining as well to make a new reasonable build out of a now-defunct character. It's much worse if that 5 or 10 prestige takes you below 16 prestige and then you end up dying somewhere in between - all because you took options that got errata'd.
The bottom line is that it's no fun trying to play a character you never intended to play. Finlanderboy's first big paragraph expresses this pretty well.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Finlanderboy:
I am unsure exactly what your complaint is. You have yet to really post why your build is completely useless due to two recent errata changes and/or clarifications: Crane Wing/Riposte and Elf/Aasimar Oracle FCB.
Is it that your animal companion isn't 150% as good as it could be and now is only 120% better than a Druids?
Or that you can't take a revelation with the FCB that you haven't taken yet? (the fact anyone thought this was possible RAW is dubious at best, but at least now we have the clarification on what the intent was).
How are we really to respond to your post if you aren't going to explain what the changes specifically did to your character that now makes it "useless?"
Secondly, I haven't really seen any PFS staff talking nasty to you. You have to remember that Mike Brock was a police officer, so the way he comports himself and the language he uses, is very much military style. Straight and to the point. I know I'm not the best at diplomacy, and many times I don't try. But I think that in this case you are being very, very overly sensitive.
FYI: Your above post is coming across as, "do things the way I want, or I'm taking my ball and going home!"
That really isn't a good attitude to take to help affect change.
|
(Im addressing the season 5 point here, not Crane Wing)
I must admit I love the way Season 5 has gone with its ability to let players actually walk past fights/negotiate. I still see people almost craving combat so they dont miss out on 'max gold' but I love that players are thinking of inventive ways to get around it too.
I do not miss the early season faction missions. It involved a lot of 'Roll and beat DC XX' and get the prestige point. That just dosnt do it for me.
I want my players to struggle for their benefits. If you get something too easy, it means less to you.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why don't people want to keep Crane Wing?Because they can't win at Pathfinder anymore.
And this sort of commentary is part of what is clearly wearing at Finlander.
It is EXPENSIVE to retrain in PP and GP, and if the pivotal point of your build is nerfed and you have to spend 10+ prestige to back up that can be costly AND in the case of low level PCs impossible.
Be considerate of his take folks, Finlander has been polite in his disagreements with me in the past and he explained his perceptions with candor and simplicity.
|
|
Considering there are now actual retraining options, I can't see how anyone can complain about not having any way of fixing a feat they now consider dead weight...
The player that I mentioned before, nearly his entire build went off the crane line. 80% of his build doesn't work properly with that feat. I haven't thoroughly looked at his PC for a long time, but with the nerf to that feat he'd have to rebuild the entire PC to be viable anymore. I doubt he even has the PA required, not to mention at that point you may need a completely different point buy.
Venture-Agent, Australia—QLD—Brisbane
|
So, if I build a character, and level it up, and then later find that I misunderstood a pivotal ability, do I get to rebuild for free? Isn't this just as painful as the guy who had the rules changed out from under him? Why should that guy get special treatment?
Pathfinder, and PFS in particular, asks you to make a decision and then stick with it, not totally rebuild your character every time something doesn't go your way.
|
|
So, if I build a character, and level it up, and then later find that I misunderstood a pivotal ability, do I get to rebuild for free? Isn't this just as painful as the guy who had the rules changed out from under him? Why should that guy get special treatment?
Pathfinder, and PFS in particular, asks you to make a decision and then stick with it, not totally rebuild your character every time something doesn't go your way.
Its just as bad but its your own fault. Taking crane wing was a perfectly legal option, no mistakes, no rules bending, no taking advantage of a gray area.
You also can't set yourself up for a free rebuild by "Acccidentally" doing something you shouldn't. There's no way to take advantage of that with a rules change
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would be a shame to lose you, Findlander, so I hope you reconsider.
Some of the build issues clearly should not have been allowed for PFS in the first place - they were just not balanced or functional or clear or whatever. That's not a PFS issue, but a consequence of the Paizo candle being burnt at both ends and in the middle on all the projects they're doing. However, people complain bitterly if all the new options aren't immediately made PFS-legal. As the number of options increases, the playtest and design work departs more and more from actual ground truth, and we find out down the road that players find a really unbalanced combination of stuff which was never designed to work together.
PFS is a wonky system - you give up a lot of flexibility, in exchange for the ability to play with people around the world any time. Sometimes what we give up may seem too much, but then we sit down at a con with 6 strangers and have an amazing game experience. THAT'S what PFS is for, and then all the rebuilds and rules details just fade into the background.
Hope you stick around!
Honestly, I like the year 5 scenarios. And if you think about it, in a 'real' Pathfinder Society, it would often be the case that the society sends who is available, not who would be perfect for the job.
And much of the time, I find the fish out of water issue amusing.
You do have my sympathies about Crane Wing. It's doubly frustrating because I'm sure there are one or two people who just took an eraser to their character sheet and changed things. I do appreciate that you're playing by the official rules, good for you.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to agree with Me Anonymous up there.... I've really enjoyed the current season.
The scenarios are much better thought out, with far greater potential for RP and problem solving, in general, when compared with previous seasons! The faction "missions" when they come up are really no big deal... If you know what your faction us about, and have read the letters from the faction heads, you should be just fine.
In addition, there is no real requirement that you play a scenario with a character that is in the factions. The boons are relatively minor, so no real big deal IMHO. It is perfectly fine to play with whichever character you happen to have in tier.
I get why some people want to get all the goodies, but it's not a big deal to me. Just my opinion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) Feat argument-I don't have a dog in this fight, but I am inclined to err on the side of the player here as well. This alone isn't really enough to leave the game in my opinion, but you do raise some other decent points.
2) Faction argument-I liked every faction having something to do every mission also. I also didn't like all the stupid "here is something to find" missions. I have mentioned before that multiple factions could share goals, good goals, in a scenario. They could regularly swap who they share with and their motivations could be different. I really think this could solve a lot of the current problems.
3) Staff argument-I think both John and Mike do a really good job of keeping an even tone, even when people are being belligerent. However, I would say your concerns are very accurate with some of the other staff. I have both seen and been the recipient of some very inflammatory language and accusations both out of the blue and while trying to politely disagree with staff.
|
|
Sorry to hear it Finlander. Sad I won't have the pleasure of running a table for you.
So, if I build a character, and level it up, and then later find that I misunderstood a pivotal ability, do I get to rebuild for free? Isn't this just as painful as the guy who had the rules changed out from under him? Why should that guy get special treatment?
Not even the same situation.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As much as I hate Crane Wing and saw it disrupt my tables, I do feel that Crane Style should be given a rebuild. This is a rather unique situation where one feat is taken expressly as a prerequisite for another feat, with minimal benefit.
I do agree with the fact that a lot of the contemporary faction missions are opaque at best, for reasons I detailed when this change was made and when Wardstone Patrol came out.
I think that Mike's a bit gruff, but no more than would be expected from a man with his background and position. I'll never forget when he protected me from a problem player at Origins 2013 who was trying to get me kicked out of the convention because I didn't walk over and pick up a pregen, then hand-deliver it to him. For that reason, as well as other numerous anecdotes and alleged complaints that i've heard about from the player or local sources, but never heard about from him, I'll defend his work on the ground with all of my passion, even if we disagree. I think it's quite telling that PFS improved so much during seasons 3-4, right when he was coming on.
|
|
On Crane Style line~I do find it fairly odd that you are not allowed to freely retrain Crane Style itself. Obviously the draw of the feat was taking the entire chain, and while it was not technically changed the inherent value of the feat was, as was the integrity of the feat chain as well I think. I often thought of the idea of the chain as being a graceful fighter that struck, riposted or blocked, back and forth and dueled beautifully. The changes altered the entire theme of the feat chain and it's a little jarring to me. If it was up to me, it obviously is not, then I would allow players to retrain the entire tree.
I somewhat enjoy the new faction missions. I didn't like the S4 faction missions. I don't think what we have is the answer, but it's something to build on.
I actually used to think Mike was rude, but as I continue to read his posts I've realized that is not his intention. It may come off as a bit harsh however. But he has to appear impartial in his rulings and statements so I can appreciate that. John has always made enjoyable posts in my opinion and I commend him. The rest of the staff is not great at being an impartial wall. But they are not nearly as forward facing as John and Mike, and I think those two make a great duo for our Society needs.
I hope you find a reason to continue to buy Paizo products Fin. I love this company and I think you did too, and I hope you get what you need.
|
|
I'm with Sitri in that I don't have a dog in the fight, plus I'm not even sure what the rule change was nor how it really affects characters with that feat chain. Having said that, it does seem odd that a game states right in its guide that you can change basically anything you want to in the first level of a character's life (to make sure you get what you wanted out of the character so you can enjoy it, etc..) that it sort of dumps on established characters when they go ahead and change rules, after the fact, that your character may be based on. Not very cool imo. Retraining is fine, but that is the players decision. Forcing a player to dump n amount of cash and prestige because you changed your mind just sucks and it will likely put the character behind the curve in advancement with gear and the like.
I've already said a few times what I think of the season 5 faction stuff. Not the worst thing for me, but also not far away from being awful. There have been quite a few suggestions and ideas on how to merge the pre season-5 and season-5 methods that I think would be a huge improvement.
I wouldn't recognize any 'staffers' other than Brock and Compton and I have yet to see either of them post anything that matches what the OP is saying.
|
Venture-Agent, Australia—QLD
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I read elsewhere ages ago (regarding the change to the method weapon cords applied) that people could rebuild, but this was something you needed to discuss with the GM or the VC/VL.
Frankly if a change radically alters your class build, ask someone in "authority" which in my case would first be my VC, and chances are he would agree that since the change altered how my character operated a rebuild is warranted. Paizo cannot really authorize this enmass, because it is a case by case basis.
On the grounds of rudeness, some people are rude, if I stopped buying or doing something because someone who worked for that company was rude to someone I would have no passtimes whatso ever. there are much better ways to deal with negative attitudes than boycoutting a product, afterall you stop buying, noone knows why, noone knows if you did.
This is symptomatic of the wider society, alot of people run from issues, cannign or stopping associating with people rather than confront the issue. If someone is being rude, stand up. If I saw a post where someone was rude, I tell them, via a post or preferrably a private message, that they did not reply in a nice tone, that their behaviour needs to bbe better, etc. But I also need to realise that this is my opinion and my perception of their comment, and may not be actually what is meant.
Fianally you mention the faction missions, personally I am loving the season 5 faction missions, they are now to me making it feel like a proper mission, sometimes I am given hints, and if not, I need to know my faction to play the faction right, as Qadira I am always looking for deals, as Andoran I am out to free slaves, and punish the wicked, as Scarni, I am after personal wealth, and wealth for the Faction.
In the old system, at times it was "do this" and it was pretty obvious, or hell it was totally ambiguous. now I need to think, but once again this is a GM thing, know your group, I know my group often has a nooby who's rather young, as such,I will give him more hints for his faction mission, others whom are more experienced, they can work it out.
you other issue regarding the factions and having a character really comes down to you and your VC, if you don't have a character for that faction, why not? have you raised your concern with the VC? are you the only one in a group of 6 who has an issue? are you offering to organise or run a session? there are lots of methods to solve this delimmer, and none of em are Paizo's fault, there will be factions that you will suit your characters faction that mine won't my attitude is, get over it, it all works out in the end.
What this TL:DR domes down to is this, you raise alot of issues, not one of them is something that could not have been solved without simply talking to someone. Understand that this game is designed to be played by any number of the 7 billion people on this planet, nothing is personal, sometimes those upto 7 billion will work out a way to break the game, it has to be fixed, this means an exception has to be made, if you are caught inadvertently in it, then talk, don't hold it in and then rage quite.
Finally, your lack of enjoyment, hardly seems to be a result of the missions or the scenario's but rather your attitude that the game is not what you want. in which case, talk to the VC, make positive posts to Paizo, but don't rage quite and whinge, it does nothing but paints you in the bad light, which you do not deserve.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
There have been rules changes in Pathfinder Society since Season 0. There will continue to be changes to what's allowed in Additional Resources, to the way certain feats or spells work, and to the expectations of the environment.
Sometimes, these have been gifts to the players, and everybody's happy.
Sometimes, these have been new restrictions (goodbye, my undead lord; goodbye, my ranger with bracers of falcon's aim) or "clarifications" (goodbye, my gorilla animal companion with greatsword; goodbye, free-action weapon cords) and some people are sad.
Finlanderboy, I'm sure you realize that, in every case, new restrictions are put in place because the campaign leads felt that the (items / game mechanics) weren't working in the Organized Play environment. In the case of Crane Wing, I think they were right -- that's an argument for a different thread -- but even if they were not, it's their call to make. I'm not telling you anything you didn't know.
"Clarifications" have been worse than new restrictions, because they generally don't allow any rebuilds at all, but in every case, there have been characters who have been mechanically harmed by the new restriction. Unless the campaign staff were to allow complete rewrites of characters every time a new restriction is announced -- and I do believe that that level of chaos would indeed harm the campaign -- some players end up with characters who bear some scars. In this case, somebody might have given his character a feat (Crane Style) he didn't want, and not own Ultimate Campaign. In another situation, a player might have relied on those bracers to strike as accurately as he wanted.
I've been affected by this, several times. If you've seen my characters, you'll notice that I will often choose to play common, complicated builds, to familiarize myself with how the mechanics play, so that if a summoner or a magus hit my table, I know how the characters are supposed to work. And that means that I get caught in these rules revisions more often than someone playing a more baseline wizard. Some of my characters bear legacies of these changes; an odd attribute or a vestigial feat.
I still play the characters, and I still enjoy the campaign. If I thought a character were dinged beyond my ability to enjoy it, I'd retire that PC and play or start another one. I mean, hell, characters die, sometimes because of bad luck; sometimes because a GM has read a rule differently or because another player at the table messed up or refused to help the party. That risk is part of the game, which we all accept. We don't quit because a PC is gone, nor because a PC needed to be raised from the dead and is now "behind the curve" (whatever that means) on prestige. As players, we look forward to playing a new character, or the same old character back from the dead, at the next table.
And that's my advice to you. If the folks around the table are fun, then enjoy their company and stick around. If playing a new character, or the same old character with an odd feat, isn't going to be fun, then find something else to do: you'd have to play a new character sometime, eventually.
Be at peace. Do what gives you joy.
|
Why don't people want to keep Crane Wing?
Because if you have built your character to already have huge AC, the feat by itself has extremely little to no value. It does lead into Crane Riposte, which is all well and good, but for me at least, I chose Crane Style on my now retired 19.1 character because it was the best defensive style. If I cared about generating attacks of opportunity, I would have gone with Snake instead.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I for one optimize and minmax my character something fierce. I am happy to accept the label of powergamer. Been doing it since the 70s.
However, there is one general rule of behavior I try to adhere to.
If I am going to ride the cutting edge of build design, I should have the good grace not to whine when that edge sometimes cuts me.
It happens. It will happen again. It is just part and parcel of pushing the limits on rules. There is really no point in extended complaining about it. Either accept the hit as an inevitable function of the min max metagame, or in the worst case shelve the character and move on. Plenty of other builds out there to try out.
-j
|
|
Why don't people want to keep Crane Wing?Because if you have built your character to already have huge AC, the feat by itself has extremely little to no value. It does lead into Crane Riposte, which is all well and good, but for me at least, I chose Crane Style on my now retired 19.1 character because it was the best defensive style. If I cared about generating attacks of opportunity, I would have gone with Snake instead.
If you have an AC build, why did you need the old Crane Wing anyway? There would have been no hits to deflect.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Shelving the character is fine for PFS Number dash 11 of 20 but not really an option for your highest, especially if the others are a long way off.
Then continue to play the character if that's what you want. (Just make sure that the GM never rolls well enough to kill the PC, since that character dying would also be "not really an option".)
This is a game. Do what's fun. If you enjoy playing the character as it stands, or paying for the rebuild and playing it thereafter, do so. If you would not enjoy that, play some other character.
|
|
I am affected. I have a PC that is largely unplayable at the moment because of the changes to the crane style feat tree. However, I just don't understand all hub-bub about it. With a few minor changes and some retaining, he'll be fine. I seriously doubt this new errata makes a character both unplayable AND uncorrectable.
Everyone seems to be stuck on the prestige cost of retraining. Spend some money people! Its only 5 days to retrain a feat. That's only 50GP X PC level. So even if you're level 11, its only 550gp to dump crane style. Is anyone really trying to say that is unreasonable? By mid-levels, most players are dumping much more than that in expandable resources in most combat encounters, and retaining is a one-time cost. Let's not continue to try and make this sound like a meaningful impact on wealth-by-level.
|
|
You need to spend 1 pp per day of training along with the gold. Its an and, not an or.
When utilizing these
retraining rules, you must expend wealth as outlined in
the Retraining section of Ultimate Campaign, as well as
1 Prestige Point per day of retraining since time between
scenarios is undefined
