How PFS lost my money, and can re-win it


Pathfinder Society

101 to 138 of 138 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee 5/5 Developer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
FallofCamelot wrote:

Guys. Seriously let's stop the negativity before this gets unpleasant.

I'm sure the Paizo staffers have better things to do with their time than patrol the messageboards to keep order. It's a thankless task I'm sure.

I'm sure that they have also taken note of the OP's concerns and the responses to it.

Pretty much this. I'm not sure what more there is to discuss in this thread, but I'm willing to read other comments tied to the content of the original post and not its tone. Comments are getting nasty, so take a breath and a step back.


I would love to say that I am baffled at the hostility. Although this is the internet. I do admit I expected better of Lady Ophelia.

Jason Hanlon was exactly correct on his assessment and even the choice of words I would and have use before in vote with your money(same economics professor?).

I made no mention of leaving the game, no made plans to. I will infact DM at a con the first weekend in march. Nor did I ask ANYONE to stop payiong money. Although I did encourage many people to buy pfs books and I honestly cannot do that if I do not myself.

In the end it is MY MONEY. Mine not yours. You have no right to say what I do with MY MONEY. Now that aside. I tried to provide valueable information to a company in a place where that could make thge changes I see fit. My first job out of college included exit sruveys for our clients customers. One I remember sticking out was people with 25 dollar a month roadside assistance. They paid us 55 dollars for everycustomers we could get feedback from. Many were empty and vague and took me 5 minutes to do. Others close to 15. Now I spend over three times that an average month on paizo products. This was done with a courtesy to paizo on how they can earn more money from me. Only a fool would say otherwise. I am giving them info that is valueable.

I also did not have one reason. I laid a variety of them out there. What you call a whine is me shaking me head spending my money on something else. This was maid public on purpose. FOr those that want to spend money on paizo, tell them here how they can get MORE of your money. Or how these changes cause you to spend MORE money on their stuff. That would be the best counter to my arguement. Now that I provide you a means to lie and counter my arguement. Go for it.

Now I have a plethora of books and minis already. For the past 8 months I bought a box of minis almost every weekend. I have spent a ton of money in this time. I have enjoyed my time with it. But the way things head I get frustrated by the descions and a game should be fun not frustrating.

I make my characters with the transparent rules that are available for everyone as anyone can see them. I have a direction I want them to be. I spend and direct everything towards that design. Now once I have that design and have everything spent everything in getting it. Now the rules are changed. FIne, great even. But to force to keep something I would not now build that the open and transparent rules adjusted? That is insultingly rude. COnsider this. They change fireball to 1d4 damage. And say you can pick another spell if you have it. But not change any feats or traits. Well that wayang spell hunter, preffered spell, and such are now on a spell dramatically weakened you wouyld have never taken. Being stuck with those because a rule change sideswipes your design is silly at best.

Shadow Lodge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
That's 5 PP and 550gp if Crane Style is the ONLY feat you need to swap. There may be many more feats that were based around having Crane Wing/Riposte.

Do you have a build for this?

We need one to illustrate the point, because it certainly does sound miniscule (even though we know under certain circumstances it's not).

Sovereign Court

Avatar-1 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
That's 5 PP and 550gp if Crane Style is the ONLY feat you need to swap. There may be many more feats that were based around having Crane Wing/Riposte.

Do you have a build for this?

We need one to illustrate the point, because it certainly does sound miniscule (even though we know under certain circumstances it's not).

If you took a two level dip into Master of Many Styles to get Crane Wing, then that is an incredibly expensive retrain as that makes the levels you took in MoMS a huge waste.

Also note that Crane Style has some prerequisites attached to it (specifically Improved Unarmed Strike and Dodge) that may not be so desireable if Crane Wing is no longer a compelling build option. Unless you are a monk of some kind, Crane Wing is a 4 feat investment. With the retraining rules for errata'd feats, and assuming that Dodge and Improved Unarmed Strike are useless if Crane Wing is not desired (a very safe assumption for IUS), then this is a 3 feat retrain.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

Finlanderboy wrote:
change fireball to 1d4 damage

I understand what you are saying and don't want to make lite of it, but honestly, this is not a great analogy. No one is saying fireball is a broken mechanic. OTOH, it is fairly common for players to admit that crane style as it originally existed, especially with respect to level dipping, was over-powered. I'm not saying that player should have known better, but it's not really a stretch to say we could see errata was warranted.

It really is no different to other game mechanics than are widely considered "broken." If there is a lot of complaints/outcry from the community, it shouldn't really surprise anyone when it is errata'd. As such, we really don't have a lot of basis for complaints. There is some inherent risk using ambiguous or out-of-balance game rules. As players, we really need to take some responsibility in that.

As I've said, I have a crane style master of many styles. He is not broken, but he is also not of the level dippers that the errata seems to be directed towards. Am I happy about the errata? Nope, but it does not surprise me and I'm willing to retire the PC or make some adjustments to his build. And yes, his entire persona was based on the ability to avoid being hit/not taking damage.

I'm glad to hear you are not quiting PFS entirely as we need good players/GMs.


Bob Jonquet wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
change fireball to 1d4 damage

Awesome response, but I disagree

I feel the rules need to be open and visable for everyone.

When I make a character I always try to make sure they are legal without table varience.

Now when the rules are adjusted with rules that were agreed legal. I am no longer making a character based on open visable rules.

There is a list of things that I know are overpowered. Now my nature oracle plan was to have a ton of silliness and make the smartest axebak pahtfinder with companion oracle. The rules they are set up now I can not fully do the silliness I planned on. It was not meant to break and trivilize the game, but make the table laugh at the strange situation of Heroditus the giant carnivorous bird telling history lessons.

Now that I can partially do what I had planned it lost it's magic to me. I want to make something else.

5/5 Venture-Agent, Australia—NSW—Sydney aka lastblacknight

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Avatar-1 wrote:
We need one to illustrate the point, because it certainly does sound miniscule (even though we know under certain circumstances it's not).

Sounding 'minuscule' is your opinion..

People emotionally connect with the PC's they create and it's frustrating when the rules change (now change is inevitable and needed). But people are allowed to be frustrated (then pull themselves back together and then move on). A Chain of feats, can also effect level dips etc...

So one of my PC's was made illegal by a board ruling last week, this meant a race boon I traded and built an entire character concept around was over - and not because it was a combo or optimised. Just a ruling and the Shadow form evolution. Now this annoyed me, I bought the book required for the evolutions, I already had invested the advanced race guide and the advanced players guide. (Now the ruling is cool - I don't have any issues in general, but I do object to now having to pay gold and PP as a result to get back to legal when it was legal up until that ruling (checking FAQ and Additional Resources).

The thing we need to understand is we play in an organised campaign, and the effort it takes to manage such a diverse group of people must be huge. There must be a constant balancing act between various groups and business needs (and I don't have a enough of the picture to make an informed view).

The retraining rules have been great for my older characters who now have access to the newly released content of the last couple of years, the great thing is that whilst the rules of PFS shift slightly ever-so-often they are always moving forward to make a better game and help the community. Just sometimes I get a twinge when it effects me, also because people identify with these characters it matters more to them.

Just imagine for a moment that one of your highest characters had one of it's foundation feats changed - how would you feel?

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Finlanderboy, as you say, the rules have to get tweeked every so often. Sometimes, overpowered things get taken away. (What was the name of the shirt in UE that got banned because it gave an extra move action?) (Anybody remember synthesists?)

Even if you, yourself, weren't going to abuse the rules, but were going to create a fun synthesist, or a character that was going to use the extra move action to honk a wacky horn or something, the rule change is going to exclude you, too.

I'm not saying this as a threat or anything: If that's the kind of game you want, where the GM has the authroty to allow things that could be overpowered, but are fine in the hands of a mature player, then you should be playing more home campaigns. That's their strength. There's a lot of PFS players who get bent out of shape about the things that Mike and John allow, or not, becuase they imagine that PFS is the be-all and end-all of the Pathfinder RPG. Don't fall into that trap.

Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Ottawa aka Mistwalker

Like others, I do not have a crane wing dedicated PC. And like others, an example of how this change will require serious rebuild (that is, more than a single feat retraining) would be appreciated to understand where the problem lies.

If the example is compelling enough, there is always a chance (no matter how small) that John and Mike may allow rebuilds for crane wing characters. Without the example, there is likely little to no chance of that happening.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

LazarX wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Venture Officers are representatives of Paizo as official coordinators.
Only up to a certain level of deniability.

Regional Coordinator Requirements:
Basic Requirements

• The Pathfinder Society Organized Play Regional Coordinator is a volunteer position. Regional coordinators are not Paizo Publishing employees. Applying for the volunteer position of regional coordinator means you acknowledge these restrictions.
• Regional Coordinators must be willing and able to fulfill a list of monthly volunteer duties below.
• Regional Coordinators must always strive to act in a professional, positive, and outgoing manner when functioning in their capacity as volunteers for Paizo Publishing.
• You must be 18 years of age or older and you must be willing to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) with Paizo Publishing.
Duties & Expectations
• Be the go-to contact for your local area or region of responsibility; assist local game days, game clubs, conventions, or any other such group wanting a Pathfinder Society Organized Play presence at their event.
• Build a positive rapport with all local game store managers and employees.
• Build and maintain monthly an email list of local volunteers.
• Maintain a full report of local game stores (including: contact information, manager’s name, what Paizo products they carry, and whether they are running Pathfinder Society Organized Play events (with or without your assistance) on a quarterly basis. Work with these stores to ensure they are registered on paizo.com.
• Ensure that all Pathfinder Society Organized Play sessions run in your local area or region are reported and reported accurately, and that all Pathfinder Society Organized Play events are entered properly to display on the Events page (paizo.com/pathfinderSociety/events).
• Be a Paizo Publishing product expert. Familiarize yourself with all of our product lines and be comfortable talking about all of them.
• Provide the Campaign Coordinator with frequent feedback from game stores, volunteers, and players in your local area or region of responsibility.
• Game Master a minimum of one Pathfinder Society Organized Play session per month.
• Organize a minimum of two Pathfinder Society Organized Play convention or game store events per month in your local or regional area of responsibility.
• Attend PaizoCon or Gen Con and work for Paizo at one (or both) of those conventions annually. Non-US regional coordinators will be expected to attend large local conventions to be determined.
• Keep up to date on rulings, answer questions, and participate on a weekly basis on the Pathfinder Society Organized Play messageboards and on the private Regional Coordinator messageboard.

Take it as you will.

5/5

LazarX wrote:
The player in question responded to my requirement that he had to do something to earn a dip check with the following. "If that's the case, I may as well never play a socialy oriented character again!"

Sounds like he wants to play a board game.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Finlanderboy wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
change fireball to 1d4 damage

Awesome response, but I disagree

I feel the rules need to be open and visable for everyone.

When I make a character I always try to make sure they are legal without table varience.

Now when the rules are adjusted with rules that were agreed legal. I am no longer making a character based on open visable rules.

There is a list of things that I know are overpowered. Now my nature oracle plan was to have a ton of silliness and make the smartest axebak pahtfinder with companion oracle. The rules they are set up now I can not fully do the silliness I planned on. It was not meant to break and trivilize the game, but make the table laugh at the strange situation of Heroditus the giant carnivorous bird telling history lessons.

Now that I can partially do what I had planned it lost it's magic to me. I want to make something else.

I think you are falling into the trap that assumes that because something is published, it can never, ever change.

I will not accuse of you of being entitled, because I don't know you personally. I believe I've never met you, nor played at your table, with you as a player, or GM'd for you (unless you were at Gamehole Con in November and you didn't introduce yourself as Findlanderboy). But the way you are saying what you are saying, is coming off as entitled.

So now you know. You got burnt on this one. But now you know. RPG game rules are always in flux. Never assume rules are written in stone.

None are.

Now that you know this, you can go about playing the game you and I both love, without feeling upset at changes.

And if you think you could find another gaming company that doesn't change rules, I think you'll be sad. You won't find any.

From Gurps, Champions (Hero System), West End d6 system, White Wolf, DnD, AD&D, Pathfinder, Palladium, et. al. there isn't a game company out there that's produced a game system that hasn't changed (and thus made some character abilities different--thus possibly less effective).

This is how RPG games work. The rules are constantly in flux, and there is no such thing as a sustainable game system that builds upon itself, that remains in perfect balance throughout all its new product. As such, sometimes errata, clarifications, and outright changes needed to be made to bring new product in balance with original product.

That's life playing RPG games of any stripe.

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

Hey Finlanderboy,

Thanks for sharing your feelings here, it's not always easy to do, especially when you're going against the grain like you are here.

Regarding your post, a lot of it looks like something that's more of a "letter to the staff" rather that something I can really comment on.

I don't feel like it's my place to weigh in with authority on the rules decisions made by Paizo with their system. That's entirely the design team's deal--they make the choices. On a personal note, a while ago I had a Crane Wing character that (ab)used the feat. There was a definite lack of challenge when I played him and he became boring, so I stopped playing him. Because of this, I'd argue that yes, something needed to happen with that feat chain and I'm glad it did. Nerfing the feat was a good call, but that's just my own opinion. How it that change got implemented into PFS, though? That could be a discussion we could have if you wanted.

That aside, it is also definitely not my place to tell you how to spend your money. I don't think it's anyone's place. That's your business and your choice.

So all that aside what I really want to say to you is this.

For me, PFS is a lot more than a different medium for playing Pathfinder in. It's about the people I get to play the game with. I genuinely like most of the people I meet through this game, and even if a character I love is nerfed or even broken by a change, I'd still keep showing up to PFS hang out with my friends twice a week, even if it is just to blow off steam about a change that nerfed my character.

I don't care if you stop spending money on Paizo products. But I do think you'll regret loosing touch with a lot of great people if you wind up taking a break from PFS.

If you aren't going to stop playing PFS, but are just going to stop purchasing product for a while, then disregard all that. Otherwise, it's something to keep in mind.


I am fine with rules changes. I think they are great.

I just do not want a character to be ambushed by rule changes. If I had crane wing and they errated it. FIne great it was powerful. Well Now I would prefer snake style instead. Why should I have to spend resources adjusting to that?

The rules are not transparent if our characters resources take a hit because of rules changes.

Let me switch the parts of my character that were affected by the change. In the end I can not longer have the character I want. So I am stuck with this half wanted character. Why can't I rebuild to something else I want? I would be estatic with them banning or reducing the favored class bonus if I got to make another character with the new rules in place. It costs paizo nothing to allow me to adjust to a mistake they made allowing in the first place.

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Agent, Australia—QLD—Brisbane aka YogoZuno

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
So I am stuck with this half wanted character. Why can't I rebuild to something else I want?

As I was trying to point out earlier, if you allow this sort of rebuild, what is the difference between this, and another player wanting to change a character that doesn't work the way he expects? What if it's optimised for a situation that just never comes up in PFS? What if the other characters that end up at his table just never mesh in with the character?

Aren't all these circumstances going to cause a similar feeling of being stuck with a character that no longer fits the expectations? So, why can't THOSE people totally rebuild their characters too?

And the reason is, PFS is built around the idea of making a choice, and then living with the consequences of that choice.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Finlanderboy wrote:

I am fine with rules changes. I think they are great.

I just do not want a character to be ambushed by rule changes. If I had crane wing and they errated it. FIne great it was powerful. Well Now I would prefer snake style instead. Why should I have to spend resources adjusting to that?

The rules are not transparent if our characters resources take a hit because of rules changes.

Let me switch the parts of my character that were affected by the change. In the end I can not longer have the character I want. So I am stuck with this half wanted character. Why can't I rebuild to something else I want? I would be estatic with them banning or reducing the favored class bonus if I got to make another character with the new rules in place. It costs paizo nothing to allow me to adjust to a mistake they made allowing in the first place.

So your grief is not with Pathfinder.

Its with this specific campaign's rules for how you are allowed to modify your character when changes are made.

I believe that part of the reasoning behind the rules as they currently stand, is threefold:

1) Verisimilitude: To maintain as much fluff verisimilitude as possible. Your character is a crane wing master of many styles. Allowing a complete and total rebuild doesn't fit this requirement, as your character is no longer the same character. This is a story element issue. Its the same reason that most home game GM's don't allow folks to make changes to a character once they've used a skill or ability or feat in game play.

2) High-Level Ground-up Rebuilds have a tendency to be broken: Rebuilding a character from the ground up creates a problem of brokenness the higher level your character becomes. Your character no longer becomes a function of pre-play build design or organic creation (making choices for your character based on their experiences in game play). This especially comes into play when your rebuild negates what one might consider subpar choices in relation to new material that's been published (that really has nothing to do with the errata, clarification, or change).

3) Previous OP campaigns: Previous organized play campaigns have shown how liberal rebuild rules really created chaos and eventually lead to the downfall of said campaigns. Its this history and experience that campaign staff has, that has informed them on the pitfalls of allowing rebuilds. The current rebuild rules are actually quite generous in what they allow. And the specific rebuild rules allowed for crane wing/ripost and the Elf/Aasimar Oracle FCB are even more generous.

Without posting your specific build that you are unhappy with, and why it is unplayable without a more generous or liberal rebuild, it will be incredibly difficult to actually continue this discussion with you.

Sovereign Court

The cost of retraining out of Crane Wing is going to vary based on how you came to obtain it. From my experience, there are 3 scenarios:

1. You have 5 levels in monk. At 5th, you took Crane Wing (the minimum to be eligible for it as a Monk), and took Crane Style early (when doesn't matter really). Crane Style is the only feat that needs to be retrained. This is a relatively trivial case. (Note: This also basically satisfies the scenario where you took lots of MoMS levels because you wanted to have lots of style shenanigans, but no longer want Crane Style consuming a feat.)

Cost: 5PP

2. You weren't aware that you could take a dip into MoMS or didn't want to for some reason, but still wanted Crane Wing. You would have had to take the following feat chain:

1. Dodge
2. Improved Unarmed Strike
3. Crane Style
4. Crane Wing

Assuming you wanted to retrain out of Crane Style, and that Improved Unarmed Strike is actually not really your schtick (highly likely for non-monk), then you have at the very least 2 feats you need to retrain. If you also don't want dodge, that's 3.

Cost: Anywhere from 5PP-15PP

3. You have a character that for whatever reason (perhaps to be highly melee proficient without needing to invest in AC) took a 2 level dip into Master of Many Styles. The first MoMS level to get Crane Style, and the second to get Crane Wing. Assuming that Crane Wing is the sole reason you took MoMS at all, then you effectively have two class levels that could have been spent on now better options.

Cost: 10PP-14PP depending on whether the new class levels have training synergy.

It kind of varies. It can be expensive in the worst case, or pretty cheap in the best case. But these examples assume that only Crane Style needs to be retrained. It does not take into account other build options that may have been chosen to compliment or that depended on Crane Wing. The examples are also quite minimal and, I think, best case scenarios for people who have this problem. There may be worse ones.

EDIT: I'm not particularly bothered by having to spend PP and gold to retrain Crane Style. I still believe it is a viable feat for defensive PCs, so I don't think its unnatural or unfair to charge for a retrain. I'm just kind of playing the devils advocate and throwing out information for the record.

5/5 Venture-Agent, Australia—NSW—Sydney aka lastblacknight

1 person marked this as a favorite.
YogoZuno wrote:
And the reason is, PFS is built around the idea of making a choice, and then living with the consequences of that choice.

We also need to recognise that a build that was legal two days ago, now isn't. (mine, not crane wing - yes the change still twinges..)

It would help if the change [back to Crane Wing] that doesn't penalise the player in question who may have spent money but who has also invested time in the PC. To re-build his character it may cost extra PP and gold depending on a complicated build.

The trick for PFS is retain the flexibility in the rebuild/retraining rules without it being abused. That's kinda tough if we take a sample of comments from the boards. (But we are a diverse bunch that all play for difference reasons and needs). ...and apparently how rebuild rules effected other games.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Walter Sheppard wrote:
awesoem stuff

I agree. D&D and all it's spin offs are a way to socialize in a game with friends. I plan to keep roleplaying it up. If I were really irked I would consider running star wars or something else.

I will keep playing and thank you for the support.

As to a leter to the editor. Well I provided tech support for QUicken bill pay. If you had a an issue you wanted to send to the letter of the president. That went to my friend a cube over, and that is it. If someone got a compliment he would send it to the supervisers so that person could get rewarded. Elsewise they went no where. This is the 3rd company I worked for that did that(my current one does this also). So I do not trust sending information to nowehere.

Also this provides reasons for the usually intelligent PFSers to provide me logic as why I should recant, or for them to say the opposite of me. I do understand I am often wrong and welcome any polite disagreement. This was also meant as a means for people to say "hey I love the changes! Anytime they punish people that build power characters they should lose all prestige points and gold! I will give you all my money." This is a thread for paizo to learn why I stopped spending money. If I left andstopped telling my friends the books they should buy for their characters. Well that is nto fair for paizo either.

As a side note Mr. Sheppard. I trollt he baords alot and enjoy reading your posts. I would love to play with you sometime. I think it would be great.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

lastblacknight wrote:
YogoZuno wrote:
And the reason is, PFS is built around the idea of making a choice, and then living with the consequences of that choice.

We also need to recognise that a build that was legal two days ago, now isn't. (mine, not crane wing - yes the change still twinges..)

It would help if the change [back to Crane Wing] that doesn't penalise the player in question who may have spent money but who has also invested time in the PC. To re-build his character it may cost extra PP and gold depending on a complicated build.

The trick for PFS is retain the flexibility in the rebuild/retraining rules without it being abused. That's kinda tough if we take a sample of comments from the boards. (But we are a diverse bunch that all play for difference reasons and needs). ...and apparently how rebuild rules effected other games.

Exactly.

I think that the current rebuild rules balance what you talk about quite well, actually.

5/5 Venture-Captain, Georgia—Savannah

Folks, this thread has drifted quite a bit, has gone through several changes of tone, and overall, very little has been said that hasn't been said before in other threads.

It comes down to this:
1. Rules change. Some people will like the changes, accept they were needed, etc. Some people won't.

2. Factions and faction missions change. Some people will like the changes, accept they were needed, etc. Some people won't.

3. People disagree with each other. People have varying degrees of sensitivity to the perceived attitudes of others (which may or may not be accurate). That isn't going to change.

At the end of the day, change happens. It's impossible to please everyone all the time. The people who aren't pleased will feel the need to complain. The people who are pleased will try to either offer options for the displeased people to resolve things, or try and convince the displeased people that the new way is better.

This has all happened before, and will happen again. This isn't unusual, and isn't the end of the world.

To the folks who are unhappy with the recent changes: instead of complaining, offer well-thought out alternatives. Instead of complaining on the message boards, send those well-thought out alternatives to the Paizo people who actually have a say in how things work. The Paizo folks can't be expected to read every thread, and by time a thread gets enough weight behind it to make the Paizo folks need to read it, its gotten so long that all the good points have been lost in signal-to-noise ratio.

To the folks who are happy with the recent changes (or just plain don't agree with the complainers): arguing with angry people changes nothing. You may be making valid points, but when someone is in 'complain-mode', they can't hear your good points. Just settle down, and let the complainers calm down.

Please?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Finlanderboy wrote:
I would love to say that I am baffled at the hostility. Although this is the internet. I do admit I expected better of Lady Ophelia.

Um.. Says the man whose Paizo profile says "Internet troll" on it?

Listen, I am not coming from a hostile place. Those who know me, know that I am actually one of the nicest most caring players/GM's in our community.

Want proof that I am not a meanie?:
I do this for our convention organizers: Greater Restoration Chicken Soup

I am coming from a: "Really bro?" kind of place.

At the end of it all, what I say, and whatever I do, it's your time, money, and business. But if you are creating threads like this, instead of finding new and more fun ways to make the most of your characters; I don't have to be kind, or gentle, or even a freaking "Lady" for that matters. I reserve the right to call out someone if I feel it right. This is unfortunately, one of those moments.

It's NOT all about you bro. PFS has never been about you and your feelings. It's about building a community of players that enjoy a great adventure. How is an erratta going to stop you from being a great member of our community? It's not, if you are a fun, and a positive contributing member of our community.

You stop being a great member of our community, if you act exactly like your own self-created title: Internet Troll.

It's your choice to be that way, or to be a player that goes with the changes and focuses on the main aspect of the game: having a good time.

I hope you will make good choices, and remember what's important about PFS. And if you cannot, I hope that you find a place that better meets you and your needs.

/puts thread on hidden and leaves thread.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Finlanderboy wrote:

I am fine with rules changes. I think they are great.

I just do not want a character to be ambushed by rule changes.

I admit, I have no idea what this position means.

Let's say that, in February, the development team realizes that a particular two-feat combination is drastically overpowered and ends almost all fights. Lots of players are building characters with the combination, and several Venture Captains are observing that it's having a negative impact on play.

So, you think that ought to be changed.

But you don't want to be ambushed by the change. You want to see it coming.

So, would you be happier if the development team made an announcement that, coming in May, they were going to change the way one of those feats worked, to bring it back in line with what the rules team intended? Would you be happier if there were another three months of bad builds, trivialized encounters, and wrecked games?

When the development team sees a problem, they fix it.

Lantern Lodge

David Bowles wrote:
If you have an AC build, why did you need the old Crane Wing anyway? There would have been no hits to deflect.

Need might not be the appropriate word, but I liked it for insurance. Sometimes things like brilliant energy, raging barbarian, debuffs, ect. happen.


YogoZuno wrote:
Quote:
So I am stuck with this half wanted character. Why can't I rebuild to something else I want?

As I was trying to point out earlier, if you allow this sort of rebuild, what is the difference between this, and another player wanting to change a character that doesn't work the way he expects? What if it's optimised for a situation that just never comes up in PFS? What if the other characters that end up at his table just never mesh in with the character?

Aren't all these circumstances going to cause a similar feeling of being stuck with a character that no longer fits the expectations? So, why can't THOSE people totally rebuild their characters too?

And the reason is, PFS is built around the idea of making a choice, and then living with the consequences of that choice.

The people that rrebuilds that built poorly will do one of three things. The most common I see is cheat and rebuild anyway, the second adjust and play as possible, or thirdly abandon the character.

My defense is that they knew the open transparent rules. They knew the rules before they made it.

I agree with making a consquense of choice. But that swings both ways. If the staff want to make a choice to punish me for them changing my character so I no longer want it. I no longer have to give them money.

I ask for open honest character design rules.

These types of rules allow cheaters to thrive. The people that cheat with character builds I bet also cheat on not purchasing the books they use.

5/5 Venture-Agent, Australia—NSW—Sydney aka lastblacknight

I think we can recognise when rules do change that this doesn't happen in a vacuum. People emotionally invest in their PC (it's a bummer when they die or fail to perform in-game) and you have to expect some blowback to these inevitable changes.

That said; even though one of my PC's was nerfed a couple of days back (yep the whole build is now invalid). The retraining rules gave one of my first PC's a lease of life; I could retrain some new feats made available in the last couple of years. So with the rules shifting I still figure I am out ahead.

Is there way we can flag a board ruling for the Dev's so it can be added to the FAQ? I mean a relevant post by Mike or John - I have been marking it FAQ but some have been missed. I got caught out by a buried post from May 2012 and it would have saved the disappointment beacuse I actually download the Additional Resources and checked the FAQ for the relevant book.

I am happy to put up my hand to help flag these rulings to be added.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Not sure why there is this level of Hostility toward such a non-hostile non-trolling OP.

At this point it seems that the guys attacking finlanderboy are not even reading his post and do not even care about what he is saying, and are just in a defensive mode counter attacking whatever get in their way.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Finlanderboy wrote:
YogoZuno wrote:
Quote:
So I am stuck with this half wanted character. Why can't I rebuild to something else I want?

As I was trying to point out earlier, if you allow this sort of rebuild, what is the difference between this, and another player wanting to change a character that doesn't work the way he expects? What if it's optimised for a situation that just never comes up in PFS? What if the other characters that end up at his table just never mesh in with the character?

Aren't all these circumstances going to cause a similar feeling of being stuck with a character that no longer fits the expectations? So, why can't THOSE people totally rebuild their characters too?

And the reason is, PFS is built around the idea of making a choice, and then living with the consequences of that choice.

The people that rrebuilds that built poorly will do one of three things. The most common I see is cheat and rebuild anyway, the second adjust and play as possible, or thirdly abandon the character.

My defense is that they knew the open transparent rules. They knew the rules before they made it.

I agree with making a consquense of choice. But that swings both ways. If the staff want to make a choice to punish me for them changing my character so I no longer want it. I no longer have to give them money.

I ask for open honest character design rules.

These types of rules allow cheaters to thrive. The people that cheat with character builds I bet also cheat on not purchasing the books they use.

I don't see how making clarifications, edits, errata, or outright changes is dishonest.

I honestly have no idea how you can consider doing what game companies do, is dishonest.

The character creation rules are what they are. And they even have rebuild rules written into the character creation rules. You have three types of rebuilds allowed. A) Free and full up to playing for the first time at 2nd level or above. B) Per Ultimate Campaign. or C) If change or errata changes your character, you have some limited options for free rebuild.

That fact that the last rule is even written, lends one to believe that hey, this game company might make errata that may affect my legally built character. And the rules for if that happen are right here.

So how is that dishonest? You have the open and honest rules for what happens if a potential change happens. And the fact there is a rule for this, should tell you that rules changes could happen, and could affect your character.

Calling said changes dishonest, is dishonest.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
lastblacknight wrote:

Is there way we can flag a board ruling for the Dev's so it can be added to the FAQ? I mean a relevant post by Mike or John - I have been marking it FAQ but some have been missed. I got caught out by a buried post from May 2012 and it would have saved the disappointment beacuse I actually download the Additional Resources and checked the FAQ for the relevant book.

I am happy to put up my hand to help flag these rulings to be added.

There's a "FAQ" button on every post. Just click it and it will be flagged as a potential FAQ entry for review by Paizo staff.

There's also a sticky thread where a lot of ruling that haven't made it into the FAQ are posted. If you think something needs to be added to that, you can PM or email Mike and he'll look at adding it to the stickied post.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Finlanderboy wrote:


If the staff want to make a choice to punish me for them changing my character so I no longer want it. I no longer have to give them money. I ask for open honest character design rules.

The rules are open and honest, Finlanderboy. There's nobody keeping secrets. There's no lying, or dishonesty. There are imperfect rules, that get tweaked when the development team realize there's a problem. Let's be open and honest in return; you want a campaign where the rules never change, where legal character options are never made illegal. You are not going to be happy in this campaign, because that happens sometimes.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Chris Mortika wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:


If the staff want to make a choice to punish me for them changing my character so I no longer want it. I no longer have to give them money. I ask for open honest character design rules.

The rules are open and honest, Finlanderboy. There's nobody keeping secrets. There's no lying, or dishonesty. There are imperfect rules, that get tweaked when the development team realize there's a problem. Let's be open and honest in return; you want a campaign where the rules never change, where legal character options are never made illegal. You are not going to be happy in this campaign, because that happens sometimes.

This (has) happens(ed) in every single game system and organized play campaign that I am aware of.

5/5 Venture-Agent, Australia—NSW—Sydney aka lastblacknight

Chris Mortika wrote:
There are imperfect rules, that get tweaked when the development team realize there's a problem. Let's be open and honest in return; you want a campaign where the rules never change, where legal character options are never made illegal. You are not going to be happy in this campaign, because that happens sometimes.

Perhaps, when rules are tweaked - then we can make allowances for those PC's effected? (retraining is fine, but it costs PP and gold and isn't the players fault - they didn't change the rule).

It's fine to change the rules as needed, we just need to allow the time for people to get use to the change and respect the effect this change might effect them in ways we didn't expect.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

lastblacknight wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:
There are imperfect rules, that get tweaked when the development team realize there's a problem. Let's be open and honest in return; you want a campaign where the rules never change, where legal character options are never made illegal. You are not going to be happy in this campaign, because that happens sometimes.

Perhaps, when rules are tweaked - then we can make allowances for those PC's effected? (retraining is fine, but it costs PP and gold and isn't the players fault - they didn't change the rule).

It's fine to change the rules as needed, we just need to allow the time for people to get use to the change and respect the effect this change might effect them in ways we didn't expect.

They are allowed some free retrain options when changes are made.

They just don't get a free total rebuild.


Chris Mortika wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:


If the staff want to make a choice to punish me for them changing my character so I no longer want it. I no longer have to give them money. I ask for open honest character design rules.

The rules are open and honest, Finlanderboy. There's nobody keeping secrets. There's no lying, or dishonesty. There are imperfect rules, that get tweaked when the development team realize there's a problem. Let's be open and honest in return; you want a campaign where the rules never change, where legal character options are never made illegal. You are not going to be happy in this campaign, because that happens sometimes.

I disagree. If I knew the rules were going to change I would have never built that. It is not open or honest if they make changes and expect us to pay consequences for them.

This is understood parially by PFS management by allowing to rebuild what was changed, but that ignores the fact that I have traits, favored class bonuses, level dips, other feats, and magical items all linked to those changes that are now significantly effected.

I see the rules adjustments as a mistake on the paizo staff. That is my perception. Now that is fine if people make mistakes. The most expensive cost of any large construction is human error. I except and understand error. I should not have to pay for that error though. Espcially when the fix costs them nothing.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Chris Mortika wrote:
See? This thread is full of love.

I'll call housekeeping.

Grand Lodge

Eh, I can see where you are coming from (and I do think you make a good point in the original post, what with 'cheaters gonna cheat' after all), but not entirely. I dont think the devs went into building that feat tree with the idea that it would later have to be scaled back. It just so happens that it was too strong for its own good.

Now if they made the ability completely useless (which they didnt, it just got nerfed) or made it do something completely different from the original (its still pretty close), then I could agree with you, and I think Mike and John would as well.

Since its just a nerf to the ability and doesnt make a character who uses it completely useless, I dont think it warrants a free change.

5/5 ⦵⦵ RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
LazarX wrote:
There are moments however that make me want to quit judging PFS. One player got extremely angry with me because he had maxed out his diplomacy abd I had told him that if he wanted to win over an NPC that he had to do something other than say. "I make a diplomacy check".
Lol, that sucks! Sometimes it can be hard to know exactly what to say but I always say something (in character thats helpful hopefully) before rolling.
The player in question responded to my requirement that he had to do something to earn a dip check with the following. "If that's the case, I may as well never play a socialy oriented character again!"

In all fairness many people play characters that are what they are not. So if someone is not a very good speaker in real life they might find it more than a bit intimidating when told they can't just roll. I personally also try to say a few words, on social checks, but I can see it from the other side.

Digital Products Assistant

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Locking. The level of hostility shown here is not OK on our forums in any thread. Personal attacks never help the conversation. In the future, it might be better to address multiple topics in different threads so that they can be responded to more effectively. If you have feedback regarding our staff or moderation practices, please email webmaster@paizo.com.

101 to 138 of 138 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / How PFS lost my money, and can re-win it All Messageboards